Mirastan Yoksunluk ve Mirasçılıktan Çıkarma Sebeplerinin Masumiyet Karinesi ile İlişkisi
Barış DemirsatanMasumiyet karinesi ve onunla bağlantılı lekelenmeme hakkı Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi tarafından düzenlenmiş ve olağanüstü hal durumunda dahi dokunulamayan bir temel haktır. Bu bağlamda özel hukuk yargılamasında masumiyet karinesinin ihlal edilmesi Anayasa Mahkemesi ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi nezdinde yapılan başvuru sonucunda kural olarak bir yargılamanın yenilenmesi sebebi oluşturur. Bu nedenle bir tarafın suç işlediği yönünde itham içeren mirastan yoksunluk ve mirasçılıktan çıkarma sebeplerine ilişkin özel hukuk yargılamalarında bu hususun önemle göz önünde bulundurulması gerekmektedir. Her ne kadar maddi hukuka ilişkin düzenlemelerde bu yönde açık veya örtülü bir düzenleme bulunmasa da yargılamanın yenilenmesine sebebiyet verebilecek bir temel hak ihlalinden kaçınmak için Anayasa ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesine uygun yorum ilkesine koşut bir yorum benimsenmeli ve böylece temel hak ihlaline yol açması olası maddi hukuk koşulları ile temel hakların korunmasına ilişkin ilkeler arasında uyum sağlanmalıdır. Bununla birlikte, suç ithamında bulunulan ilgili kişi hayatını kaybetmişse, bu durumda özel hukuk mahkemesinin suçun işlenmesi hususunda karar vermesinde bir engel bulunmamaktadır. Ceza yargılamasında hüküm verilmesinin güçleştiği hallerde ise masumiyet karinesinin Anayasa’da düzenleniş tarzı dikkate alındığında özel hukuk mahkemesinin mahkûmiyet kararı aramasının isabetli olacağı ifade edilebilir.
The Connection Reasons for Deprivation of Inheritance and Removal from Inheritance Have With Presumption of Innocence
Barış DemirsatanPresumption of innocence and the right not to be criminalized constitute fundamental rights enshrined in the Turkish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. In principle, violating the presumption of innocence in private law proceedings constitutes a reason for a retrial as a result of a complaint filed before the Turkish Constitutional Court or the European Court of Human Rights. Therefore, this issue needs to be taken into consideration in proceedings regarding grounds for deprivation of inheritance and exclusion from inheritance that are comprised of an accusation of the party having committed a crime. Although no explicit or implicit provision exists in the regulations on substantive law in this regard, an interpretation in line with the Turkish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights should be adopted in order to avoid violating fundamental rights, as well as achieving harmony between the substantive legal conditions that may lead to a violation of fundamental rights and the principles governing the protection of fundamental rights. However, if a person who has been charged with an offence dies, no obstacle exists for the civil court to render a judgment. In cases where rendering a judgment in criminal proceedings would be difficult, having the civil court seek a conviction decision can be said to be appropriate considering how the presumption of innocence is regulated in the Turkish Constitution.
The impact of fundamental rights on private law relations has become an area of increasing attention in the context of constitutionality checks and individual application (constitutional complaint) through the Turkish constitutional judiciary and judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) regarding state parties. Articles 38 and 15 of the Turkish Constitution and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) constitute the basis of the presumption of innocence in Turkish law. The presumption of innocence is essentially related to the burden of proof in criminal proceedings. However, in order to protect this right, observing it only in terms of proving guilt in criminal proceedings is insufficient. In this framework and within the scope of the negative or positive obligations of the state, the public authority must refrain from treating such persons as if they were guilty. The presumption of innocence, with the right not to be criminalized being one of its elements, can be asserted against public authority.
Fundamental rights can have an indirect or judicial effect on private law. Thus, the assertion of such rights on an individual basis against persons who do not exercise public authority can be ensured within the framework of the protection of personality rights. In addition to this, courts are also considered to be authorities exercising public power in the individual application, with ECtHR case law necessitating that these courts respect the fundamental rights recognized in the Turkish Constitution and the ECHR in their decision-making processes and judgments. Therefore, courts are obliged to render judgments in accordance with these rights in order to avoid violating fundamental rights when applying national law. Otherwise, a retrial may be warranted, in which case, ruling in accordance with the judgment of the Turkish Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights will be obligatory.
Although an interpretation must be made based in accordance with fundamental rights when applying national law, fundamental rights must prevail in terms of the regulations that conflict with fundamental rights. Otherwise, an application before the Turkish Constitutional Court or the ECtHR on grounds of fundamental rights having been violated will result in a judgment of violation. In terms of the presumption of innocence, if the court in a private law dispute judges one of the parties to the case to have committed a crime without a final judgment of conviction having been passed in terms of the facts examined in the proceedings, or if said case includes such a statement within the reasoning of the judgment, the right of the concerned party not to be criminalized by the public authority will have been violated. However, the necessity for avoiding violating fundamental rights in proceedings does not mean that the conditions stipulated in substantive law change. The conditions stipulated in substantive law and the requirement that the private law court must avoid violating fundamental rights at the end of the proceedings create a distinction between which conditions should be taken as the basis in proceedings. When considering the principle of interpretation in accordance with the Turkish Constitution and the ECHR, however, the conclusion cannot be reached that this condition is also required in substantive law by interpreting the legal provisions in private law. When applying to the institutions governing deprivation of inheritance or disinheritance for determining the status of an heir or testamentary creditor within the framework of a private law dispute becomes necessary, the potential will be present to risk violating the presumption of innocence and the right not to be tainted, depending on the nature of the reasons that are alleged to prevent the acquisition of rights arising from inheritance law.
When analyzing the grounds for deprivation of inheritance and exclusion from inheritance, these grounds are seen to mostly criminal accusations in some cases. Although a final judgment of conviction is not required in terms of substantive law, in order to avoid violating fundamental rights, the occurrence of a judgment of conviction must be sought in accordance with the principles of interpretation as per the Turkish Constitution and the ECHR in order to rule that the grounds for deprivation of inheritance or exclusion from inheritance have been fulfilled. If a person who has been charged with a criminal offense dies, no obstacle is found to prevent a civil court from issuing a judgment. In cases where rendering a judgment in criminal proceedings would be difficult, having the civil court seek a conviction decision can be said to be appropriate when considering how the presumption of innocence is regulated in the Turkish Constitution.
