Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nda ‘Gerekçe’ Kavramına Yer Veren Hükümlerin Eleştirel Bir İncelemesi

Anayasa’nın 141. maddesinin üçüncü fıkrasında mahkemelerin her türlü kararının gerekçeli olarak yazılacağına yer verilmiş ve bu düzenlemeyle uyumlu olarak Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nun 34. maddesinde de hâkim ve mahkemelerin her türlü kararının, karşı oy da dâhil, gerekçeli olması gerektiğine vurgu yapılmıştır. Ancak kanun koyucu anayasal ve genel nitelikteki bu düzenlemelerle yetinmemiş ve davanın nakli, bilirkişilik, tutuklama gibi belli hususlarda da gerekçe aranacağını CMK’nin bazı maddelerinde özel olarak düzenleme yoluna gitmiştir. Yapılan değişikliklerle bu anlayış sürdürülmüş ve gerekçe kavramına yer veren maddelerin sayısı giderek artmıştır. Gerekçe olgusuna ilişkin mevzuattan kaynaklanan mevcut sorunlarla birlikte düşünüldüğünde, gerekçeli karar hakkının güvence altına alınması amacıyla yapıldığında kuşku bulunmayan bu değişiklikler çoğu zaman amaçlananın tam aksine sonuçların doğmasına sebebiyet vermiştir. Başta CMK’nin 34, 230 ve 232. maddeleri olmak üzere, yapılacak amaca uygun değişikliklerle bu sorunların asgariye indirilmesi mümkündür

A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE PROVISIONS INCLUDING THE CONCEPT OF ‘REASON’ IN THE TURKISH CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

In the third paragraph of Article 141 of the Constitution, it is stated that the decisions of all courts shall be written with reason, and in accordance with this regulation, it is emphasized in Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code that all kinds of decisions rendered by the judge and courts, including dissenting opinions, shall contain reasons. However, the legislator has not confined itself to these constitutional and general regulations and has preferred to specifically regulate that the reason would be sought in certain matters, such as transferring of a lawsuit, expertise, and pre-trial detention in some articles of the CPC. This approach has been continued by the amendments made, and the number of articles that include the concept of reason has gradually increased. Considering these amendments, which were undoubtedly made in order to secure the right to a reasoned decision, along with the already existing problems regarding the concept of reason stemming from the legislation, they have mostly led to the exact opposite of what was intended. These drawbacks could be minimized by the suitable amendments to the CPC, to Articles 34, 230, and 232 in particular.

PDF

___

Criminal Procedure Code, Law Number: 5271, Ratification: 04 December 2004, Issue: 17 December 2004 - 25673, (TR).
Expertise Law, Law Number: 6754, Ratification 03 November 2016, Issue: 24 November 2016 - 29898, (TR).
The Constitution of Republic of Turkey, Law Number: 2709, Ratification: 18 October 1982, Issue: 09 November 1982 - 17863 (Repeating), (TR).
The Government Bill on Expertise Law, 683 [04 March 2016] 46, (TR).
The Government Bill on the Law about Amending Some Laws for the purpose of Enhancing the Judicial Services, and Postponing of the Public Claim and Punishment regarding the Crimes through Press, 544 [30 January 2012] 51/54, (TR).
The Government Bill on the Law on the Amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code and Some Laws, 4059 [22 October 2016] 20-26, (TR).
The Government Bill on the Criminal Procedure Code, 1020 [07 March 2003] 73, (TR).
The Law about Amending Turkish Penal Code and Some Laws, Law Number: 6545, Ratification: 18 June 2014, Issue: 28 June 2014 - 29044, (TR). The Law about Amending Criminal Procedure Code, Law Number: 5353
Ratification: 25 May 2005, Issue: 01 June 2005 - 25832, (TR).
The Law about Amending Criminal Procedure Code and Some Laws, Law Number: 6763, Ratification 24 November 2016, Issue: 02 December 2016 - 29906, (TR).
The Law about Amending Criminal Procedure Code and Some Laws, Law Number: 7188, Ratification: 17 October 2019, Issue: 24 October 2019 - 30928, (TR).
The Law about Amending Criminal Procedure Code and Some Laws, Law Number: 7331, Ratification: 08 July 2021, Issue: 14 July 2021 - 31541, (TR).
The Law about Amending Some Laws for the purpose of Enhancing the Judicial Services, and Postponing of the Public Claim and Punishment regarding the Crimes through Press, Law Number: 6352, Ratification: 02 July 2012, Issue: 05 July 2012 - 28344, (TR).
The Law about Amending Various Laws, Law Number: 5560, Ratification: 06 December 2006, Issue: 19 December 2006 - 26381, (TR).
Turkish Penal Code, Law Number: 5237, Ratification: 26 September 2004, Issue: 12 October 2004 - 25611, (TR).
The Constitutional Court, Case 326/81 [11 July 2018].
The Court of Cassation of Turkey, General Assembly of Criminal Chambers 82/231 [13 October 2009].
The Court of Cassation of Turkey, General Assembly of Criminal Chambers 986/554 [22 November 2018].
The Court of Cassation of Turkey, General Assembly of Criminal Chambers 1422/695 [25 December 2018].
The Court of Cassation of Turkey, General Assembly of Criminal Chambers 1098/212 [14 March 2019].
The Court of Cassation of Turkey, General Assembly of Criminal Chambers 114/99 [11 March 2021].
The Court of Cassation of Turkey, General Assembly of Criminal Chambers 15/106 [16 March 2021].
The Court of Cassation of Turkey, General Assembly of Criminal Chambers 541/194 [04 May 2021].
The Court of Cassation of Turkey, General Assembly of Criminal Chambers 1190/302 [22 June 2021].
Calvo-Goller K., The Trial Proceedings of the International Criminal Court, (Martinius Nijhof, 2006).
Centel N. and Zafer H., Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku, (13th edn, Beta, 2016).
Doğru O. and Nalbant A., İnsan Hakları Avrupa Sözleşmesi – Açıklama ve Önemli Kararlar 1. Cilt (Council of Europe, 2012).
İnceoğlu S., Adil Yargılanma Hakkı – Anayasa Mahkemesine Bireysel Başvuru El Kitapları Serisi 4 (European Commission, 2018).
Keskin S., Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda Temyiz Nedeni Olarak Hukuka Aykırılık (Alfa 1997).
Öntan Y., Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda Bilirkişilik, (Yetkin, 2014).
Sınar H., Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda Tutuklama, (1st edn, On İki Levha, 2016).
Yenisey F., Turkish Penal Procedure Code, (3rd edn, Kutup Yıldızı, 2017).
Yenisey F. and Nuhoğlu A., Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku (5th edn, Seçkin 2017).
Edited Books
Öztürk B. (ed) , Ana Hatlarıyla Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku (5th edn, Seçkin 2018).
Schroeder F.C. and Verrel T., Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku (Salih Oktar tr, Yetkin 2019).
Journal Articles
Alp M., ‘Anayasa Hukuku Açısından Mahkeme Kararlarında Sözde (Görünürde) Gerekçe’, ‘Prof. Dr. Mahmut Tevfik Birsel’e Armağan’ (2001) DEÜY 425-441.
Aşçıoğlu Ç., ‘Yargıda Gerekçe Sorunu’ (2003) 48 TBBD 109-116.
Bekri M.N., ‘Gerekçeli Karar Hakkı’ (2014) 3 ABD 203-228.
Centel N., ‘İnsan Hakları Avrupa Mahkemesi Kararları Işığında Tutuklama Hukukuna Eleştirel Yaklaşım’ (2011) 17(1-2) MÜHFD 49-93.
Cin M.O., ‘Ceza Yargılamasında Bilirkişilik ve Uygulama Sorunları’ (2021) 4(1) NEÜHFD 170-184.
Cross F.B, ‘The Ideology of Supreme Court Opinions and Citations’ (2011- 2012) 97(3) ILR 693-752.
Dönmez B., ‘Yeni CMK’da Bilirkişi Kavramı’ (2007) 9 (Special Issue) DEÜHFD 1145-1177.
Duffy J.F., ‘Reasoned Decisionmaking vs. Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office’ (2019) 104 ILR 2351-2386.
Katoğlu T., ‘Tutuklama Tedbirine İlişkin Sorunlar’ (2011) 4 ABD 17-33.
Kelemen K., ‘Dissenting Opinions in Constitutional Courts’ (2013) 14(8) GLJ 1345-1371.
Kılıç M., ‘Gerekçeli Karar Hakkı: Yargısal Kararların Rasyonalitesi’ (2021) 47 TAAD 1-46.
Negri S., ‘The Principle of Equality of Arms and the Evolving Law of International Criminal Procedure’ (2005) 5 ICLR 513-571.
Rigoni R., ‘Common-Law Judicial Reasoning and Analogy’ (2014) 20 LT 133- 156.
Strong S.I., ‘Writing Reasoned Decisions and Opinions: A Guide for Novice, Experienced, and Foreign Judges’ (2015) 2015(1) JDR, 93-128.
Sunay Z.A., ‘Gerekçeli Karar Hakkı ve Temel İlkeleri’ (2016) 143 DD, 7-54.
Şeker H., ‘Strazburg Yargı Kararlarında Doğru,Haklı,Yasal ve Makul Gerekçe Biçimleri’ (2007) 65(2) İBD 179-200.
Tanrıver S., ‘Bilirkişinin Sorumluluğu’ (2005) 56 TBBD 133-166.
Van Detta J.A., ‘The Decline and Fall of the American Judicial Opinion, Part I: Back to the Future From the Roberts Court to Learned Hand – Context and Congruence’ (2009) 12(1) BLR 53-151.
Yokuş Sevük H., ‘Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda Bilirkişilik’ (2006) 64(1) İÜHFM 49-107.
Theses
Atagün Ö.F., ‘Temel Bir İnsan Hakkı Olan Adil Yargılanmanın Unsuru Olarak Gerekçeli Karar Hakkı’ (Master’s thesis, University of Hacettepe 2020).
Decisions and reports of the European Commission on Human Rights Venice Commission, ‘Report on Separate Opinions of Constitutional Courts’ [17 December 2018] 932/2018 CDL-AD(2018)030. Websites and Blogs
‘English Translation of the Turkish Constitution’, https://global.tbmm.gov.tr/ docs/constitution_en.pdf accessed 08 November 2021.
Simackova K., ‘Dissenting Opinions in Constitutional Courts: A Means of Protecting Judicial Independence and Legitimising Decisions’, 1 https://echr. coe.int/Documents/Intervention_20210415_Simackova_Rule_of_Law_ENG. pdf accessed 10 November 2021