Citation Number
3
Views
68
Downloands
15
Kural olarak, bir kimsenin dava açması, davaya katılması ya da icra takibinde bulunmasında teminat aranmaz. Ancak kanunun öngördüğü bazı istisnaî durumlarda dava açmak ya da takip talebinde bulunmak için teminat şartı aranabilir. Teminatın arandığı hâllerden birisi de, MÖHUK m. 48’de düzenlenen, dava açanın, davaya katılanın ya da icra takibi yapan kimsenin yabancı olmasıdır. Davacıdan ya da icra takibi yapandan teminat istenmesi, mahkemeye erişim hakkı kapsamında adil yargılanma hakkı (AİHS m. 6 ve Anayasa m. 36) ile de ilgili bir konudur. Türkiye’de bulunan yabancılar da, 1951 tarihli Cenevre Sözleşmesinde olduğu gibi aksine bir düzenleme olmadığı müddetçe MÖHUK m. 48’in uygulama alanı içinde kalabilecek kişiler olarak değerlendirilebilir. Türkiye’nin 1951 tarihli Cenevre Sözleşmesine koymuş olduğu coğrafî sınırlama sebebi ile özellikle mülteci statüsüne sahip olamamış ve ülkemize uluslararası koruma amacıyla gelen şartlı mülteci, ikincil koruma statü sahipleri ile geçici koruma sahipleri ve uluslararası koruma başvuru sahiplerinin teminat yükümlülüğüne ilişkin ise hukukumuzda özel bir düzenleme mevcut değildir. Çalışmada, uluslararası koruma altında kabul edilen bu kişilerin teminat yükümlülükleri, mahkemeye erişim ve adil yargılanma hakkı çerçevesinde değerlendirilmiş ve bu kişilerin MÖHUK m. 48 ya da HMK m. 84 kapsamında teminat yükümlülüklerin bulunup bulunmadığı incelenmiştir.
As a rule, no guarantee is required for a person to appeal, participate in the case or to be in the execution. However, in some exceptional cases provided for by the law, a guarantee may be requested to appeal or to request follow-up. One of the circumstances in which the guarantee is sought is that the prosecutor, the participant in the case or the person who is an executive prosecutor is a stranger. The request for guarantee from the prosecutor or the executor is also a matter related to the right to fair trial within the framework of the right to access the court (Council No. 6 and Constitution No. 36). Foreigners in Turkey may also be regarded as persons who may remain within the scope of the MÖHUK m.48 as long as there is no other regulation as provided for in the 1951 Geneva Convention. As a result of the geographical limitation that Turkey has set in the 1951 Geneva Convention, it has not
In principle, no security is required for anyone who files a lawsuit, intervenes in a lawsuit, or initiates execution proceedings before a Turkish court. However, in some exceptional cases stated in legal regulations the person who files a lawsuit, intervenes in a lawsuit, or initiates execution proceedings could be required to provide security. One example in this regard is the situation, as regulated under Article 48 of the Act on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure (IPPL), that the person filing or intervening in a lawsuit or initiating execution proceedings before a Turkish court is a foreign national. This is, however, an issue related with the right to a fair trial within the scope of the right to access to the court (Art. 6 of the ECHR and Art. 36 of the Turkish Constitution). Unless the contrary is provided as in Art. 16 of the 1951 Geneva Convention, foreign nationals residing in Turkey could be regarded as persons falling within the scope of application of Art. 46 of the IPPL. There is no special regulation in Turkish law regarding the liability of cautio judicatum solvi of conditional refugees, holders of subsidiary protection status owners, holders of temporary protection and international protection applicants, who came to Turkey for international protection but could not acquire the status of refugees due to the geographical reservation of Turkey to the 1951 Geneva Convention. In this paper, the liability of cautio judicatum solvi of these individuals, who are considered under international protection, is evaluated in the light of the right to access to the court and fair trial, and the question of whether they are under the obligation of exe cautio judicatum solvi under Art. 48 of the IPPL or Art. 84 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure is examined.
Field : Hukuk
Journal Type : Uluslararası
Article Detail 
Citation Owners
Similar Articles
Download PDF
Journal Information
Listen Paper
Print This Page
Share
Mendeley
