Limited Şirket Kanuni Temsilci ve Ortakları Hakkında İhtiyati Haciz Uygulanması Konusunda Oluşan İçtihat Aykırılığının Hukuki Güvenlik İlkesi Bağlamında Değerlendirilmesi: Danıştay İçtihatları Birleştirme Kurulu Karar Eleştirisi
Sinan AvcıDanıştay İçtihatları Birleştirme Kurulu, limited şirket kanuni temsilci ve ortakları hakkında şirket borçları nedeniyle güvence önlemleri uygulanıp uygulanmayacağı konusunda Danıştay daireleri arasında oluşan içtihat aykırılığına yönelik içtihatları birleştirme başvurusunu reddetmiştir. Kararda, aykırılığın hukuki istikrarı zedeleyecek boyuta ulaşmadığı, mahkemelerin takdir hakkına öncelik verilmesi gerektiği, içtihadın uygulamada kendiliğinden birleşebileceği ve içtihatların birleştirilmesi için kanunda yer alan şartlardan biri olan “lüzum” unsurunun gerçekleşmediği belirtilmiştir. Karar birçok yönden eleştiriye açıktır. Öncelikle birleştirme başvurusunda seçmece kararlara yer verilmesine rağmen aykırılık bu kararlardan çok daha eskiye dayanmaktadır. İnsan Hakları Avrupa Mahkemesi’nin yüksek mahkemeler nezdinde üç ya da dört yıl süren içtihat aykırılıklarını kabul edilemez bulduğu emsal kararları da dikkate alındığında başvuru konusu aykırılık bakımından da derin ve süregiden bir çelişkinin oluştuğu görülmektedir. Kurul, mahkemelerin takdir hakkını vurgulayarak içtihadın uygulamada kendiliğinden birleşebileceğini belirtmiş olsa da aykırılığa sebebiyet veren “amme borçlusu” teriminin yer aldığı 6183 sayılı Kanun 3. maddenin çok uzun yıllardır yürürlükte olduğu dikkate alındığında, normun uygulanması bakımından yeknesak bir yorumun başvuru tarihine kadar geliştirilmesi gerektiği açıktır. Şimdiye kadar bu sağlanamadığı gibi dairelerin kendi içindeki kararları bile süreçte farklılık göstermiştir. Mevcut durumda Danıştay’ın 3 ve 9 numaralı daireleri tarafından gerçekleştirilen temyiz incelemesinde, kanuni temsilci ve ortaklar hakkında uygulanan güvence önlemlerinin iptal edileceği; Danıştay’ın 4 ve 7 numaralı daireleri tarafından gerçekleştirilen temyiz incelemesinde ise davaya konu güvence önleminin geçerli kabul edileceği şeklinde ikili bir durum ortaya çıkmaktadır. Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin de belirttiği üzere bir kararın belirli bir daireye düştüğü takdirde onanacağı, başka daire tarafından ele alındığı takdirde bozulacağı gibi bir ihtimale dayalı ve birbirine zıt sonuçlar ortaya çıkması hukuki belirlilik ve öngörülebilirlik ilkelerine aykırıdır.
Evaluation of the Contradiction In the Case Law Regarding the Application of the Precautinart Attachment to the Legal Representatives And Shareholders of Limited Liability Companies In The Context of The Principle of Legal Security: Criticism of The Decision Of The Council Of State Unification of Jurisprudence
Sinan AvcıThe Unification Board of the Council of State rejected the application for unification of case law regarding the conflict of jurisprudence between the chambers of the Council of State on whether security measures should be applied to the legal representatives and partners of limited liability companies due to company debts. The Board stated that the conflict did not reach a level that would damage legal stability and that the “necessity” element of the law was not met. The decision is open to criticism in many ways. First, the decisions included in the unification application are selective, and the contradiction that started much earlier constitutes a deep and ongoing contradiction. It is clear that a uniform interpretation should have been reached by now in terms of the application of the norm, considering that the differently interpreted article of the law has been in force for many years. In the current situation, there is a dual situation in which Chambers 3 and 9 of the Council of State will annul the assurance measures applied to legal representatives and shareholders on appeal, while Chambers 4 and 7 will accept the assurance measure subject to the lawsuit as valid. As stated by the Constitutional Court, it is contrary to the principles of legal certainty and foreseeability to have contradictory results based on the possibility that a decision will be upheld if it falls to a certain chamber and will be reversed if it is handled by another chamber.
Legal security requires that the rules of law are certain, that the legal order continues in stability and that individuals can foresee the consequences of the rules to be applied to them. There is no doubt that this predictability must be ensured by the courts. It is clear that it is a requirement of a fair trial that similar decisions are rendered in similar disputes, that the parties can foresee the decision to be rendered in a case, and that certainty is ensured in the application of the rules of law. The European Court of Human Rights, which interprets the principle of the rule of law together with the fundamental rights and freedoms protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, has evaluated the different decisions of the courts on similar issues within the scope of the right to a fair trial and has developed two criteria. The first criterion is the deep and continuing nature of the contradiction, and the second is the existence of a mechanism in national law to resolve this contradiction, whether this mechanism was used in the applicant’s case, and if so, what result was obtained. The Court states that the States Parties are obliged to harmonise their jurisprudence and that the supreme courts in particular are the most important mechanism for resolving conflicts. The Court, which also imposes a responsibility on the high courts in this sense, characterises the issuance of deep and persistent contradictory decisions by the high courts as a practise that undermines the principle of legal security and violates the right to a fair trial. The Court, which evaluates whether a deep and persistent contradiction has occurred in each concrete case, does not consider it a violation if the issue that constitutes a contradiction of jurisprudence is resolved in one and a half years and decisions are rendered in accordance with this resolution in subsequent cases, while it considers the continuation of the contradiction for up to three or four years as a violation of the right to a fair trial. The Turkish Constitutional Court also adopted the criteria and assessments of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the impact of jurisprudential differences in the right to a fair trial. In particular, with regard to the differences of jurisprudence before the higher courts, the Court considers the possibility that a decision will be upheld if it falls within a certain chamber and will be overturned if it is dealt with by another chamber, resulting in conflicting and contradictory outcomes, contrary to the principles of legal certainty and predictability.
One of the issues that constitutes a conflict of jurisprudence in Turkish law is the issue of whether the methods of protection of public receivables will be applied to the legal representatives and shareholders of limited liability companies due to the public debt of the company. Although the Council of State Unification of Jurisprudence Board has determined that there are more than one contradictory decisions by the Council of State departments, it has decided that there is no need to unify the jurisprudence by stating that the contradiction in the decisions has not reached a level that would disrupt the legal stability. This decision is open to criticism in many ways. First, the inconsistency in the judgments dates back much further than the judgments cited in the application. When these old decisions are taken into consideration, it is understood that the criterion of deep and persistent contradiction sought in the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights is met. Since Article 3 of Law No. 6183, which creates an interpretation problem between the chambers of the Council of State, has been in force for many years, it is unacceptable that the Council of State cannot develop a uniform interpretation in terms of the application of the norm. Moreover, it is observed that the relevant case chambers have reversed their own decisions on the same issue many times and changed their case law. As such, these decisions create an unpredictable legal order for the legal representatives and shareholders of limited liability companies. In the light of all these explanations, despite the existence of a deep and ongoing contradiction, the failure to eliminate the contradiction by unifying the case law leads to a violation of the right to a fair trial.
