İdarenin Yargısal Denetiminin Sınırlarına İlişkin Modeller

Hukukun üstünlüğüne dayanan demokratik rejimlerde yürütme organı ve idarenin denetimi ile ilgili farklı modeller öngörülmekle birlikte, yargı denetiminin en etkili denetim şekli olduğunda kuşku bulunmamaktadır. Ancak, yargı denetiminin öngörüldüğü hallerde, denetimin yoğunluğu üzerindeki tartışmalar devam etmektedir. Bu yoğunluk, ülkelerin hukuk geleneklerinden doğrudan etkilenmektedir. Ayrıca denetime ilişkin ilke ve standartların usul hükümlerinde açık ve net olarak belirlenmemesi nedeniyle mahkemeler tarafından içtihat yoluyla bu ilke ve standartlar belirlenmektedir. Denetimin yoğun yapıldığı hallerde mahkemelere yönelik idarenin düzgün işlemesine engel olunduğu, düşük yoğunluklu denetim yapıldığında ise temel haklardan olan hak arama ve etkili yargısal koruma ilkelerinin ihlal edildiği eleştirileri yapılmaktadır. Bu nedenle hem idarenin etkili ve verimli olarak faaliyetini sürdürmesine engel olmayacak, hem de kişi hak ve hürriyetlerinin yeterince korunduğundan emin olunacak bir yargı denetiminin sağlanması gerekmektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler:

İdare Hukuku, İdare Mahkemesi, İdarenin Yargısal Denetimi, Takdir yetkisi, Hukuka Uygunluk, Makuliyet, Ölçülülük, Temel Hakların Korunması

MODELS IN THE SCOPE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATION

It is an undeniable fact that judicial review is the most efficient way for auditing of administrative activities although there are different ways in the supervision of the executive power and administration in democratic systems which are governed by the rule of law. However, the intensity of judicial review is heavily discussed. Legal traditions of countries have an impact on this intensity. Due to the fact that the principles and standarts are not determined in certain and clear terms by legislation, courts hold responsibility to do that .However, criticism to court’ decisions can be seen both circumstances in which courts intend hard-look judicial review or softlook judicial review.When courts just focus on the application of procedural rights and decision making process rather than on the merit of administrative decision, it is said that effective judicial remedy and efficient judicial protection as fundemantal rights are not guaranteed. On the other hand, when judicial review is intensified, the effective functioning of administration is not ensured.Therefore, courts need to strike a fair balance between the effectiveness of administration and the protection of fundamental rights

Keywords:

Administrative Law, Administrative Court, Judicial Review of Administration, Discretion, Legality, Reasonableness, Proportionality, the Protection of Fundamental Rights,

PDF

___

ALLEN, Michael;THOMPSON, Bria n, Constitutional and Administrative law, Oxford ,2005.
ARMIGER, Jonathan, Judicial Review of Public Utility Commissions, Indiana Law Journal, C. 86,Sa.3, s. 163-182.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation, [1948] 1 K.B. 223, Court of Appeal (England and Wales).
BAKKER, C. L; HERINGA, Aalt W. F.; STROINK, A.M, Judicial Control: Comparative Essays on Judicial Review,Antwerpen,1995.
BARNETT, Hilaire, Constitutional and Administrative law, London, 2000.
BIGNAMI, Francis, Comparative Administrative Law, in The Cambridge Companion to Comparative Law,s. 145-170.
BURCA,G.D.,Proportionality and Wednesbury Unreasonableness: The Infl uence of European Legal Concepts on UK law, European Public Law,C. 3,Sa 4, s.561-586.
CRAIG,Paul, The EU Adminstrative Law,Oxford, 2012.
CRAIG Paul, Ultra Vires and The Foundations of Judicial Review, The Cambridge Law Journal, C. 57, Sa.1, s. 63-90.
FRITZSCHE, Alexander, Discretion, Scope of Judicial Review and Institutional Balance in European Law,Common Market Law Review , C. 47,Sa. 1, s.361-403.
LEYLAND, Peter;WOODS, Terry, Administrative Law, London,1999.
LIONEL, Jeffrey J; Dawn, Oliver, New Directions in Judicial Review: Current Legal Problems, London, 1988.
OWEN, Roberts B, Placing the Facts of Administrative Decisionmaking Before Reviewing Courts: English and American Techniques, William and Mary Law. Review, C. 27, Sa. 4, s.741-752.
ROSE-ACKERMAN, Susan, American Administrative Law Under Siege: Is Germany a Model?, Harvard Law Review, C.107, Sa. 6, s.8-31.
ROSE-ACKERMAN, Susan; LINDSETH, Peter L, Comparative Administrative Law, London, 2010.
Short v. Poole Corporation [1926] Ch. 66 and Mills v. London County Council [1925] 1 K. B. 213.
SINGH, Mahendra P, German Administrative Law in Common Law Perspective, Springer 2001.
STEPHENSON, Matthew C., A Costly Signaling Theory of Hard Look Judicial Review, Administrative Law Review, C.58, Sa. 4, s.753-814.
TAKAHASHI,Y.A., Discretion in German Adminsitrative law:Doctrinal Discourse Revised, European Public Law, C. 6, Sa.1, s.69-80.
TOBLER, Claudia, The Standard of Judicial Review of Administrative Agencies in the U.S and EU:Accountability and Reasonable Agency Action, Boston Collage of International and Comparative Law Review,C.22,Sa.9,s.213-229.
RAWLINGS, H.F, Judicial Revie w and the Control of Goverment,Public Administration, C.64,Sa.2, s.135-145.
WIDDERSHOVEN, Rob; REMAC, Mil an, General Principles of Law in Administrative Law under European Infl uence, European Review of Private Law, C. 2, s. 381-408.
ZWARD,Tom, Overseeing the Executive:Is the Legislature Reclaiming Lost Territory From The Courts?, in Comparative Administrative Law, London, 2010.