Görüntüleme
36
İndirme
15
Emare vakıanın ispat edilmesinin ardından tecrübe kurallarına dayanarak bilinmeyen bir başka vakıa hakkında hâkim tarafından sonuç çıkarılması ile fiili karineler ortaya çıkar. Fiili karineler ispat faaliyeti için kullanılır. Kanunda yer alan kurallara göre tayin edilen ispat yükü ise fiili karinelere dayanılarak belirlenemez. Ancak Yargıtay uygulamasında fiili karineler kullanılarak ispat yükünün tayin edilmesine rastlanır. Bu anlamda ziynet eşyalarının iadesi davasında fiili karineler kullanılarak ispat yükü belirlenmektedir. Öyle ki evden ayrılan kadının ziynet eşyalarını yanında götürmüş olduğu kabul edilir. Bu sebeple ziynet eşyalarının evde kaldığını/alıkonulduğunu ispat yükünü kadın taşır. Ancak kadın şiddet görerek/terke zorlanarak evden ayrılmışsa ziynet eşyalarının da evde kaldığı kabul edilir. Bunun yanı sıra kadın ziynet eşyalarını kocasına vermişse Yargıtay kararlarına göre bu eşyalar rıza ile yahut iade edilmemek üzere verilmiştir. Bu durumda erkek, ziynet eşyalarını vermekte kadının rızası olduğunu ve bu eşyaların iade edilmemek üzere verildiğini ispat yükünü taşır. Çalışmada, ziynet eşyaları bakımından fiili karineler kullanılmadan ispat yükünün dağılımının Yargıtay ile aynı doğrultuda yapıldığı olmuştur.
After the proof of the order case, the judge finds real currents with the conclusion of another unknown case on the basis of the experience rules. The real cranes are used for proof activity. According to the law, the proof burden is not determined on the basis of the actual currents. However, in the judgment, the evidence burden is determined by using real currents. In this sense, the proof burden is determined by the use of real currents in the case of the return of goods. It is believed that the woman who was leaving the house had brought her goods with her. This is why the woman carries the burden of proof that the goods are left in the house. But if the woman has been forced to leave the house by seeing violence, it is believed that her goods are left in the house. In addition, if the woman gave her gifts to her husband, according to the judgment of the court, these gifts were given with consent or not to be returned. In this case, the man carries the burden of proof that the woman has the consent of giving the goods and that these goods are not returned. In the study, the distribution of the proof burden without the use of real currents in terms of the customs objects was made in the same direction as the court.
After the basis of the presumption of fact (indication) is proved, the result of the presumption of fact emerges when the judge draws a conclusion about another unknown fact based on the rules of experience. The presumptions of fact can not be used for determining the burden of proof because the burden of proof is determined according to the rules of law. However, in the application of the Court of Cassation, it is common to determine the burden of proof using the presumptions of fact. In this sense, the burden of proof is determined by using the presumptions of fact in cases for the return of jewelry items. A woman is considered to have taken her jewelery items with her while leaving the house. For this reason, the woman has the burden of proof that the jewelry items are kept/detained (by her husband) at home. However, if the woman leaves the house by being subjected to violence/forced to leave, it is accepted that the jewelry items remain at home. In addition, if the woman gives the jewelry items to the man, it is accepted that these items are given to be returned. In this case, the man has the burden of proof that the woman has consented to give the jewelery items and that these items have been given without return. In the study, without using the presumptions of fact, it is concluded that the burden of proof is determined in line with the Court of Cassation, but there are also contrary opinions.
Alan : Hukuk
Dergi Türü : Ulusal
Makale Detay 
Benzer Makaleler
PDF Görüntüle
Dergi Bilgisi
Eseri Dinleyin
Alıntı Yap
Bu Sayfayı Yazdırın
Paylaş
Mendeley
