Görüntüleme
104
İndirme
53
Bu çalışmanın konusu; evlilik birliği içinde doğduğu zaman babasının soyadını alan çocuğun karı-koca boşandıktan sonra, velâyet anneye verilmişse hangi soyadını kullanacağı sorunudur. Çocuğun annesiyle aynı soyadını taşımaması hem çocuk, hem de anne açısından toplum hayatının farklı aşamalarında sorun yaratmaktadır. Somut olayımızda anne; velâyet hakkının kapsamına çocuğuna kendi soyadını verebileceği hakkının da girdiğini ileri sürerek “Soyadı Kanununun boşanma halinde çocuğun anasına tevdi edilmiş olması halinde bile babasının seçeceği soyadını alacağına dair hükmünün 2011 yılında Anayasa Mahkemesi tarafından iptal edilmesine” dayanarak kendi soyadını çocuklarına vermek üzere aile mahkemesinde dava açmış; davası bu konuda somut düzenleme henüz yapılmadığı gerekçesiyle reddedilmiştir. Yargıtayca onaylanan karar aleyhine Anayasa Mahkemesine bireysel başvuruda bulunmuştur. Anayasa Mahkemesi, konuyla ilgili uluslararası normların bulunduğunu, Anayasanın uluslararası andlaşmaları kanun hükmünde sayan 90/5 maddesi karşısında Soyadı Kanununun iptal edilen hükmünün yerine yeni bir düzenleme yapılmasının zaten gerekli olmadığını belirtmiştir. Anayasa Mahkemesi sözkonusu olayda Anayasanın 20. ve 10. maddeleri bakımından ayırımcılık yasağının ihlâl edildiğine hükmetmiştir. Çalışmamızda bu konunun idare hukukuna yansımaları yargısal süreçlere değinilerek ele alınacaktır.
The subject of this study is; the question of which surname the child carrying the father's surname within the marriage union will take after divorce, given under custody of the mother. The fact that the child does not hold the same last name as his/her mother causes trouble for both the child and the mother at different stages of community life. In this present case, the mother filed a lawsuit in a family court to give each surname to their children claiming that each custody right should include giving each surname to their children on the basis of "Annulment decision of the Constitutional Court in 2011 regarding the article of surname law which states that the child must use the father's surname even if the parents are divorced even if the mother keeps the custody". The case has been rejected on the grounds that tangible provisions concerning this issue have not yet been made. An individual application was lodged to the Constitutional Court against the decision approved by the Court of Cassation. The Constitutional Court has stated that there are international norms on the subject and it is not necessary to make a new arrangement in place of the revoked provision of the Surname Law in accordance with Article 90/5 of the Constitution which the international treaties have in force of law. In this present case, the Constitutional Court ruled that there had been a violation of the prohibition of discrimination with respect to Articles 20 and 10 of the Constitution. In this study, the reflection of this issue to administrative law shall be discussed on the basis of the judicial process.
The subject of this study is; the question of which surname the child carrying the father’s surname within the marriage union will take after divorce, given under custody of the mother. The fact that the child does not hold the same last name as his/her mother causes trouble for both the child and the mother at different stages of community life. In this present case, the mother filed a lawsuit in a family court to give her surname to their children claiming that her custody right should include giving her surname to their children on the basis of “Annulment decision of the Constitutional Court in 2011 regarding the article of surname law which states that the child must use father’s surname even if the parents are divorced even if the mother keeps the custody”. The case has been rejected on the grounds that tangible provisions concerning this issue have not been made yet. An individual application was lodged to the Constitutional Court against the decision approved by the Court of Cassation. The Constitutional Court has stated that there are international norms on the subject and it is not necessary to make a new arrangement in place of the revoked provision of the Surname Law in accordance with the article 90/5 of the Constitution which the international treaties have in force of law. In this present case, the Constitutional Court ruled that there had been a violation of the prohibition of discrimination in respect of Articles 20 and 10 of the Constitution. In this study, the reflection of this issue to administrative law shall be discussed on the basis of judicial process.
Alan : Hukuk
Dergi Türü : Ulusal
Makale Detay 
Benzer Makaleler
PDF Görüntüle
Dergi Bilgisi
Eseri Dinleyin
Alıntı Yap
Bu Sayfayı Yazdırın
Paylaş
Mendeley
