Vesayeti Gerektiren Hallerden Biri Olarak Özgürlüğü Bağlayıcı Ceza Hakkında 7499 Sayılı Kanun ile Yapılan Değişikliklerin Değerlendirilmesi
Caner TaşatanTürk Medeni Kanunu’nun bir yıl veya daha uzun süreli özgürlüğü bağlayıcı bir cezaya mahkum olan her ergin kişinin kısıtlanmasını emredici biçimde düzenleyen m. 407/1 hükmü ile bununla bağlantılı olarak aynı Kanun’un infazın başladığı hususunun bildirilmesine ilişkin m. 407/2 ve bu tür vesayetin sona ermesine ilişkin m. 471 hükümleri, Anayasa Mahkemesi tarafından iptal edilmiştir. Yürürlüğe girmesi ertelenen bu iptal kararının ortaya çıkaracağı hukuki boşluğu ve uygulamada yaşanabilecek tereddütleri gidermek amacıyla kanun koyucu, söz konusu hükümleri yeniden düzenlemiştir. Yapılan değişiklikler sonucunda özgürlüğü bağlayıcı ceza, bu kez daha farklı koşullar altında olmakla birlikte, vesayeti gerektiren hallerden biri olarak varlığını sürdürmeye devam edecektir. Bu kapsamda, asgari olarak belirli süreli özgürlüğü bağlayıcı bir cezası infaz edilmeye başlanan her ergin kişinin kısıtlanması gerektiği yönündeki düşünce terk edilmiştir. Yeni düzenlemeyle birlikte kesinleşmiş hapis cezasının infazı amacıyla ceza infaz kurumunda bulunan ergin bir kişinin, salt özgürlüğü bağlayıcı cezasının infaz edilmesinden ötürü, talebi olmaksızın kısıtlanması mümkün değildir. Toplam beş yıl veya daha fazla kesinleşmiş hapis cezası infaz edilen kişiler bakımından ise bunların kişiliğinin veya malvarlığının korunması bakımından gerekli görülmesi halinde vesayet makamı tarafından resen kısıtlama kararı verilebilir. Özgürlüğü bağlayıcı cezası sebebiyle kısıtlanan kişi üzerindeki vesayet, bu cezanın hukuka uygun bir şekilde sona ermesiyle kendiliğinden ortadan kalkar. İnfaz sürecinde özgürlüğü bağlayıcı cezanın toplam beş yıldan az kalması durumunda kişinin talebi doğrultusunda üzerindeki vesayetin sona erdirilmesi gerekir. Özgürlüğü bağlayıcı cezanın toplam süresinin beş yıl veya daha fazla olması durumunda ise kişinin talebi üzerine inceleme yapacak olan mahkeme, kişiliğin veya malvarlığının korunması sebebinin ortadan kalkması durumunu tespit etmesi halinde vesayetin sona ermesine karar verebilir.
Evaluation of Amendments to Law No. 7499 on Custodial Sentence as One Condition Requiring Guardianship
Caner TaşatanThe provision of Article 407/1 of the Turkish Civil Code, which mandates that every adult who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year or longer, along with the related provisions of Articles 407/2 and 471 of the same Code, have been annulled by the Constitutional Court. To address the legal vacuum and potential uncertainties in practise arising from the delayed implementation of this annulment decision, the legislator has reorganised the relevant provisions. Because of these amendments, custodial sentences will continue to exist as a condition requiring guardianship, albeit under different conditions. In this context, the idea that every adult who begins to serve a custodial sentence of a minimum fixed term duration should be restrained has been rejected. With the new regulation, it is not possible to restrict an adult who is in a penal institution for the execution of a finalised prison sentence without his or her request for this reason. For persons who have been sentenced to a total of five years or more of finalised imprisonment, a restraining order may be issued ex officio if deemed necessary for the protection of their personality or assets. The guardianship of a person who is restricted due to their custodial sentence shall be terminated automatically upon the lawful termination of this sentence. If the total sentence of imprisonment during the execution process is less than five years, the guardianship over the person must be terminated upon the request of the person. If the total imprisonment is five years or more, the court, which will conduct an examination upon the request of the person, may decide to terminate the guardianship if the reason for the protection of personality or assets disappears.
The provision of Article 407/1 of the Turkish Civil Code, which mandates that every adult who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year or longer, along with the related provisions of Articles 407/2 and 471 of the same Code, have been annulled by the Constitutional Court. To address the legal vacuum and potential uncertainties in practise arising from the delayed implementation of this annulment decision, the legislator has reorganised the relevant provisions. Because of these amendments, custodial sentences will continue to exist as a condition requiring guardianship, albeit under different conditions. In this context, the idea that every adult who begins to serve a custodial sentence of a minimum fixed term duration should be restrained has been rejected. With the new regulation, it is not possible to restrict an adult who is in a penal institution for the execution of a finalised prison sentence without his or her request for this reason. However, the manner in which Article 407/1 of the Turkish Civil Code is structured is open to discussion. This is because, in its current form, the provision is suitable for interpretation as the person may assert any of the requests for guardianship or appointment of a trustee and the judge is bound by this request. However, interpreting Article 407/1 of the Turkish Civil Code in this way is not an appropriate application in terms of the discretionary authority of the guardianship authority, which is also emphasised in the Constitutional Court’s decision. It is also unacceptable in terms of “public guardianship” carried out by guardianship offices consisting of guardianship authority and supervisory authority within the scope of Article 397/1 of the Turkish Civil Code. In any case, Article 487/1 of the Turkish Civil Code should be interpreted as an implicit addition to the reasons stipulated in Article 408 of the Turkish Civil Code and as giving the judge the discretionary power not to restrict the person. For persons who have been sentenced to a total of five years or more of finalised imprisonment, a restraining order may be issued ex officio if deemed necessary for the protection of their personality or assets. In fact, we are of the opinion that it is not appropriate to determine this situation, which raises the possibility of restriction of the person against their consent, only according to the duration of the custodial sentence and ultimately to leave it entirely to the discretion of the judge. In its new version, Article 407/3 of the Turkish Civil Code clearly regulates that guardianship authorities must listen to the individual before making a decision. This provision must be applied in both cases where a guardianship examination is made upon request or ex officio. According to the wording of the provision, it is obligatory for the guardianship authority to hear and listen to the person concerned. The guardianship of a person who is restricted due to their custodial sentence shall be terminated automatically upon the lawful termination of this sentence. If the total sentence of imprisonment during the execution process is less than five years, the guardianship over the person must be terminated upon the request of the person. If the total imprisonment is five years or more, the court, which will conduct an examination upon the request of the person, may decide to terminate the guardianship if the reason for the protection of personality or assets disappears. Nevertheless, the provision of Art. 471/2, b. 1 of the Turkish Civil Code (The Regulation) regarding the termination of guardianship in the presence of a total sentence of less than five years is open to discussion. This is because, in such a case, it may be concluded that the guardianship may not be terminated in line with the wording of the provision; in other words, the judge is given a discretionary power in this regard. However, this expression, which gives discretionary power to the judge, should be read together with the provisions of Article 407/1-2 of the Turkish Civil Code and should be specific to persons who have been sentenced to a total of five years or more; in other words, guardianship examination is carried out ex officio. In such cases, the judge has a right to decide whether the reason for protecting personality or assets has disappeared. However, this amendment to the provisions of Art. 407 and Art. 471 of the Turkish Civil Code, which was made as a result of the Constitutional Court’s annulment decision and which gives priority to the person’s request to be heard, should be considered a positive development in favour of fundamental rights and freedoms, despite its shortcomings and possible problems.
