Abstract:

If it is natural that the appearance of abuse in countries that have adopted judicial separation like our country is accepted, it is unacceptable that the legal uncertainty resulting from abuse will continue, and that the confidence in the court will eventually disrupt. This situation, from the point of view of an administrative jurisdiction, will lead to dramatic consequences. In our administrative judicial system, it has been applied for 90 years to the Association of Drinkers as a mechanism for the removal of drinking disputes in the council’s lawsuit departments and board decisions. In July 2016, with the implementation of the appeal system, considering that the majority of administrative judicial disputes have been confirmed by the decisions made by the regional administrative courts, it is inevitable that there will be a dispute between the Council and the appeal decisions in terms of the same/like disputes. The mechanism enforced in order to eliminate the dispute between the decisions of the Regional Administrative Court is also transmitted only in the distinctive direction. Since the mechanisms for the prevention of intolerance have the ability to solve the problem at the source in a stage where the conflict is not yet born, they are more effective in solving the legal problems arising from intolerance than the intolerance mechanisms. In this respect, the provision of effective mechanisms to prevent the breach of the drinking law, taking into account the examples of good practice, in the first place, is an unthinkable issue on the administrative judicial system. The integration of these mechanisms and the examples of good practice are directly related to the place and size in which the matter will occupy in our legal system in the subsequent process. In addition, it is also necessary to make legislative amendments to bring both systems implemented in a more efficient solution mechanism only in the opposite direction.

Keywords: