Citation Number
5
Views
244
Downloands
26
Keşif delili, re’sen araştırma ilkesinin uygulandığı idari yargılama usulünde, hâkimin bir uyuşmazlığı çözümlemek için başvurduğu önemli delillerden biridir. Hâkimin beş duyu organı vasıtası ile uyuşmazlık konusu hakkında bilgi edinmesi olarak tanımlanabilecek olan keşif delili hakkında 2577 sayılı İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu’nda ayrıntılı düzenleme yer almamaktadır. Bu konuda 2577 sayılı Kanun’un 31. maddesi ile 6100 sayılı Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun ilgili hükümlerine atıf yapılmakta; fakat her iki yargılama usulünün kendine has ve farklı özellikleri bulunduğundan, bu düzenlemeler ancak idari yargılama usulüne has özellikler dikkate alınmak suretiyle uygulanma imkânı bulmaktadır. İdari yargı uygulamasında keşif delili, imar uyuşmazlıklarından çevre hukukunu ilgilendiren uyuşmazlıklara kadar pek çok farklı konuda çoğunlukla bilirkişi desteği ile idari yargı hâkiminin sık başvurduğu bir delil türü olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Uygulamada son derece geniş bir yelpazede başvurulan bu delilin hukuki niteliği, hâkimin vereceği karara etkisi, keşif giderleri, keşfin icrası gibi pek çok meselenin ise idari yargılama usulü bakımından açıklığa kavuşturulması gerekmektedir.
The discovery evidence is one of the important evidence that the judge applies to in the administrative trial procedure in which the re'sen research principle is applied to resolve a dispute. There is no detailed regulation in the Administrative Procedure Act No. 2577 on the discovery evidence that the judge can be defined as the information on the subject of the dispute through the five sensory bodies. In this regard, it is referred to the relevant provisions of Article 31 of the Law No. 2577 and of the Law No. 6100 on Legal Procedures; however, since both proceedings have their own and different characteristics, these provisions are only possible to be applied by taking into account the specific characteristics of the administrative proceedings. The discovery evidence in administrative justice practice comes to us as a type of evidence that the administrative court judge often applies to in many different matters, from immaculate disputes to environmental law disputes. The legal nature of this proof applied in a very wide range in the application, the effect of the judge's decision, the expenses of the discovery, the execution of the discovery, and many matters such as the legal nature of this proof applied in a very wide range in the application, must be clarified in terms of the procedure of administrative trial.
Judicial inspection is one of the important evidences that the judge uses to resolve a dispute in the administrative jurisdiction in which the principle of ex-officio examination is applied. There is no detailed regulation in Procedure of Administrative Justice Act No. 2577 on the judicial inspection, which can be defined as obtaining information about the subject of the dispute through the judge's five senses. In this regard, reference is made to the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 by Article 31 of the Law No. 2577. However, since both judicial procedures have their own and different characteristics, these regulations only have the opportunity to be implemented by taking into account the characteristics of the administrative justice. In the practice of administrative justice, judicial inspection appears as a type of evidence that is frequently used by the administrative judge with the support of an expert on many issues ranging from zoning disputes to disputes concerning environmental law. Many issues such as the legal characteristic of the judicial inspection, its effect on the judge's decision, expense and implementation of judicial inspection need to be clarified in terms of administrative jurisdiction.
Field : Hukuk
Journal Type : Ulusal
Article Detail 
Citation Owners
Similar Articles
Download PDF
Journal Information
Listen Paper
Print This Page
Share
Mendeley
