Research Article


DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.4.0002   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.4.0002    Full Text (PDF)

Judge’s Authority to Consider Established Doctrine when Making Rulings (Art. 1/III TCC)

Fahri Erdem Kaşak

According to Art. 1/III Turkish Civil Code (TCC), a judge may make use of scientific views while ruling on a case to which they might apply. When we examine the codification of Swiss law, it is clear that scientific views are deemed to be among the sources of law. Therefore, the Preliminary Draft (1900) and the Draft (1904) of the Swiss Civil Code mandated that where there is no applicable provision in the law or customary law that relates to the issue at hand, the judge may rule based on prevailing scientific views. However, the provision was severely amended in the drafting committee, where scientific views were removed from the acceptable sources of law and reduced to the level of auxiliary means of finding the law. Thus, in both the Swiss Civil Code and TCC, scientific views are simply regarded as one of a number of auxiliary means that the judge may make use of when ruling on a given case. Although only scientific views are explicitly mentioned in Art. 1/III TCC, it is generally accepted that what the provision calls for is the acceptance of established doctrine, particularly with reference to source regulation. However, the section does not set forth the requirements that a scientific view must meet in order to be viewed as established. The prevalence of the scientific view, the high reputation of its adherents, or the fact that the scientific view is long established are not solely sufficient cause to confirm that a given scientific view is to be respected as established doctrine. However, these features of a scientific view can constitute an indication of its eligibility to be considered established doctrine. In essence, to be deemed an established doctrine, a scientific view must be materially correct, accurately reasoned, reliable, consistent, and convincing in the context of the given case. While ruling on a case in which a scientific view is at issue, the judge should highlight the scientific views on that subject and then elucidate why he/she adopted or did not adopt a particular scientific view. This discussion can be supported by the requirement that court decisions must be reasoned. However, there appears to be no explicit sanction in Art. 1/III TCC for the case where a judge declines to consider scientific views while ruling.


DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.4.0002   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.4.0002    Full Text (PDF)

Hâkimin Karar Verirken Bilimsel Görüşlerden Yararlanması (TMK m. 1/III)

Fahri Erdem Kaşak

Türk Medenî Kanunu (TMK) m. 1/III hükmü gereğince hâkim, karar verirken bilimsel görüşlerden yararlanır. İsviçre hukukundaki kanunlaştırma çalışmaları incelendiğinde bilimsel görüşlerin, öncelikle hukuk kaynaklarından biri olarak formüle edildiği görülmektedir. Nitekim İsviçre Medenî Kanunu Ön Tasarısı (1900) ile Tasarısı (1904), kanunda veya örf ve âdet hukukunda somut meseleye uygulanabilecek bir hüküm bulunmaması hâlinde hâkimin bilimsel görüşlere göre karar vereceğini düzenlemiştir. Buna rağmen redaksiyon komisyonunda hüküm, ciddi biçimde değiştirilerek bilimsel görüşler, hukuk kaynakları arasından çıkarılmış ve yardımcı araç mertebesine indirilmiştir. Böylece hem İsviçre Medenî Kanunu’nda hem TMK’de bilimsel görüşler, sadece hâkimin karar verirken istifade ettiği yardımcı araçlardan biri olarak düzenlenmiştir. Her ne kadar TMK m. 1 hükmünde sadece bilimsel görüşlerden bahsedilmişse de mehaz düzenlemeden hareketle hükümde kastedilenin teyit edilmiş bilimsel görüşler olduğu kabul edilmektedir. Öte yandan bilimsel görüşün hangi özellikleri haiz olması hâlinde teyit edilmiş sayılacağı kanun koyucu tarafından düzenlenmemiş ve bunun tayini öğretiye bırakılmıştır. Bilimsel görüşün öğretide hâkim olması, bilimsel görüşü savunanların yüksek itibara sahip olması veya bilimsel görüşün köklü olması, tek başına onun teyit edilmiş olduğu anlamına gelmez. Bununla birlikte anılan özellikleri taşıması, bilimsel görüşün teyit edilmiş olduğu hususunda emare teşkil eder. Bilimsel görüşün teyit edilmiş sayılması için maddî açıdan haklı, isabetli gerekçelere sahip, güvenilir, tutarlı ve somut olay bakımından ikna edici olması gerekir. Hâkimin karar verirken o konuyla ilgili bilimsel görüşleri tartışması ve bir bilimsel görüşü neden benimsediğini veya esas almadığını izah etmesi gerekir. Bu husus, mahkeme kararlarının gerekçeli olması zorunluluğuyla desteklenebilir. Ancak hâkimin karar verirken bilimsel görüşleri dikkate almaması, TMK m. 1/III hükmünde açık bir yaptırıma bağlanmamıştır.



EXTENDED ABSTRACT


According to Art. 1/III Turkish Civil Code (TCC), a judge may make use of scientific views while ruling on a case to which they might apply. When we examine the codification of Swiss law, it is clear that scientific views are deemed to be sources of law. Therefore, the Preliminary Draft (1900) and the Draft (1904) of the Swiss Civil Code mandates that where there is no applicable provision in the law or customary law that relates to the issue at hand, the judge may rule based on prevailing scientific views. As stated by Art. 1/II of the Preliminary Draft (1900) and the Draft (1904) of the Swiss Civil Code, scientific views are among the sources of law, although more precisely in the third rank of acceptable sources. In other words, the judge must first search for an applicable provision in the statutory law. In the absence of such a provision, the judge must investigate customary law. If again, there is no such custom relevant to the case at issue, the judge may rule in a manner consistent with scientific views. In a case where there is no pertinent scientific view, the judge decides in accordance with procedures that would be applicable to the legislature. However, the provision permitting this was severely amended in the drafting committee in 1907, where scientific views were removed from the acceptable sources of law and reduced to serving as an auxiliary means of finding the law. Thus, in both the Swiss Civil Code and TCC, scientific views are simply regarded as one of a number of auxiliary means that the judge may make use of when ruling on a given case.

Although only scientific views are mentioned in Art. 1/III TCC, it is accepted that what is actually intended by the provision is the use of established scientific doctrine. However, no guidance is provided for the characteristics required for a scientific view to be deemed an established doctrine. The legislature did not address the issue, and the resolution remains open. The prevalence of the scientific view, the high reputation of its adherents, or the fact that the scientific view is long established are not solely sufficient cause to confirm that a given scientific view is to be considered established doctrine. However, these features of a scientific view can comprise an indication of its eligibility to be considered established doctrine. In essence, to be deemed an established doctrine, a scientific view must be materially correct, accurately reasoned, reliable, consistent, and convincing in the context of the given case. While ruling on a case in which a scientific view is at issue, the judge should highlight the scientific views on that subject and then elucidate why he/she adopted or did not adopt a particular scientific view. This discussion can be supported by the requirement that court decisions must include reasoning. However, there appears to be no explicit sanction in Art. 1/III TCC for the case where a judge declines to consider scientific views while ruling. In conclusion, the judge cannot ignore the relevant scientific views while issuing a ruling, but also cannot be content with merely citing the scientific views or only learning the established doctrine and following it. 

Conversely, he/she must examine and evaluate scientific views critically. Thus, the judge will ultimately decide which of the scientific views is regarded as established doctrine. This inference can be supported by the requirement that court decisions must be supported by reasoning. According to Art. 141/III of Turkish Constitution, any court decision must be reasoned. In addition, Art. 297/I/c Turkish Civil Procedure Code lists reasoning as one of the elements of a decision. Since there is no explicit sanction in Art. 1/III TCC for a judge that does not consider established doctrine while forming an opinion, the accepted viewpoint is that Art. 1/III TCC comprises lex imperfectae. However, if the judge were to make a wrong decision owing to his/her disregard of scientific views, such a decision would most likely be reversed by the court of appeal. On the contrary, if the decision were correct in the end, it would not be reversed because only established scientific doctrine is not considered or a scientific view is considered to be established doctrine.


PDF View

References

  • Akipek J, Akıntürk T ve Ateş D, Türk Medenî Hukuku Birinci Cilt Başlangıç Hükümleri Kişiler Hukuku (15. Bası, Beta 2019). google scholar
  • Akyol Ş, Medeni Hukuka Giriş (2. Bası, Vedat 2006). google scholar
  • Altaş H ve Döngül İT, Medeni Hukuk Başlangıç Hükümleri (Yetkin 2018). google scholar
  • Amstutz M, ‘Der Text des Gesetzes, Genealogie und Evolution von Art. 1 ZGB’ (2007) 126(2) ZSR 233. google scholar
  • Antalya OG ve Topuz M, Marmara Hukuk Yorumu Medeni Hukuk Cilt 1 Giriş Temel Kavramlar Başlangıç Hükümleri (3. Bası, Seçkin 2019). google scholar
  • Ataay A, Medenî Hukukun Genel Teorisi (4. Bası, Der 1995). google scholar
  • Atalay O, ‘§ 14 İspat, § 15 Deliller’ iç Pekcanıtez H, Özekes M, Akkan M ve Taş Korkmaz H (eds), Pekcanıtez Usûl Medenî Usûl Hukuku Cilt 2 (15. Bası, On İki Levha 2017). google scholar
  • Belgin Güneş D, Ceza Mahkemesi Kararlarının Hukuk Mahkemesi Bakımından Etkileri (On İki Levha 2019). google scholar
  • Bucher E, ‘Rechtsüberlieferung und heutiges Recht’ (2000) 8(3) ZeuP 394. google scholar
  • Dolder F, ‘Rezeption und Ablehnung wissenschaftlicher Lehrmeinungen in der Rechtsprechung des schweizerischen Bundesgerichts zum Obligationenrecht 1881-1980’ (DPhil thesis, University of Basel 1986). google scholar
  • Dolder F and Buser M, ‘Zitieren geht über Studieren – Empirische Wanderungen im Grenzgebiet zwischen Rechtslehre und Rechtsprechung’ in Estermann J (ed), Interdisziplinäre Rechtsforschung zwischen Rechtswirklichkeit Rechtsanalyse und Rechtsgestaltung Beiträge zum Kongress ‘Wie wirkt Recht?’ Luzern 2008 (Stämpfli 2008) 193. google scholar
  • Dural M ve Sarı S, Türk Özel Hukuku Cilt I Temel Kavramlar ve Medenî Kanunun Başlangıç Hükümleri (15. Bası, Filiz 2020). google scholar
  • Dürr D, ‘Vorbemerkungen zu Art 1-4 ZGB, Art 1, 4’ in Gauch P and Schmid J (eds), Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuch, Einleitung Art 1-7 ZGB (3rd edn, Schulthess 1998). google scholar
  • Edis S, Medenî Hukuka Giriş ve Başlangıç Hükümleri (6. Bası, Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi 1997). google scholar
  • Egger A, İsviçre Medenî Kanunu Şerhi I. Cilt Giriş ve Kişinin Hukuku (Çernis V tr, Yeni Cezaevi Basımevi 1947). google scholar
  • Ehrlich E ‘Die “bewährte Lehre und Überlieferung” (Art. 1 ZGB)’ (1920) 16(14) SJZ 225. google scholar
  • Emmenegger S and Tschentscher A, ‘Art 1’ in Hausheer H and Walter HP (eds), Berner Kommentar Kommentar zum schweizerischen Privatrecht Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch Einleitung und Personenrecht Band I Einleitung und Personenrecht 1. Abteilung Einleitung Artikel 1-9 ZGB (Stämpfli 2012). google scholar
  • Forstmoser P and Vogt HU, Einführung in das Recht (5th edn, Stämpfli 2012). google scholar
  • Gauch P, ‘Argumente ein Geburtstagsbrief’ (2000) recht: Sondernummer für Wolfgang Wiegand 87. google scholar
  • Gauch P, ‘Ein «regelrechter» Schluss’ (2009) 128(1) ZSR 215. google scholar
  • Gauch P, ‘Was zählt, ist einzig, was man gerade weiss - Gedanken zur Gesetzgebung, zur Rechtsprechung und zu den Parteien’ in Rumo-Jungo A, Pichonnaz P, Hürlimann-Kaup B and Fountoulakis C (eds), Une empreinte sur le Code Civil Mélanges en l’honneur de Paul-Henri Steinauer (Stämpfli 2013) 1. google scholar
  • Gmür M, Die Anwendung des Rechts nach Art. 1 des Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuches (Stämpfli 1908). google scholar
  • Hatemi H, Medeni Hukuk’a Giriş (8. Bası, On İki Levha 2017). google scholar
  • Hausheer H and Jaun M, Stämpflis Handkommentar Die Einleitungsartikel des ZGB Art. 1-10 ZGB (Stämpfli 2003). google scholar
  • Hirş E, ‘Yasama ile Öğreti ve Yargı Arasındaki Karşılıklı Bağlılık’ İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi 50. Yıl Armağanı Cumhuriyet Döneminde Hukuk (Fakülteler Matbaası 1973) 173. google scholar
  • Hofer S and Hrubesch-Millauer S, Einleitungsartikel und Personenrecht (2nd edn, Stämpfli 2012). google scholar
  • Honsell H, ‘Art 1’ in Geiser T and Fountoulakis C (eds), Basler Kommentar Zivilgesetzbuch I Art. 1–456 ZGB (6th edn, Helbing Lichtenhahn 2018). google scholar
  • Höhn E, ‘Wie grau ist die Theorie?’ (1994) 3(4) AjP 411. google scholar
  • Hrubesch-Millauer S, ‘Art 4’ in Hausheer H and Walter HP (eds), Berner Kommentar Kommentar zum schweizerischen Privatrecht Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch, Einleitung und Personenrecht Band I Einleitung und Personenrecht 1. Abteilung Einleitung Artikel 1-9 ZGB (Stämpfli 2012). google scholar
  • Huber E, System und Geschichte des Schweizerischen Privatrechtes Erster Band (C. Detloff’s 1886). google scholar
  • Huber E, Bewährte Lehre (2nd edn, KJ Wyss Erben 1925). google scholar
  • Huber E, ‘Erläuterungen’ in Reber M and Hurni C (eds), Berner Kommentar Materialen zum Zivilgesetzbuch Band II Die Erläuterungen von Eugen Huber Text des Vorentwurfs von 1900 (Stämpfli 2017). google scholar
  • Hürlimann-Kaup B and Schmid J, Einleitungsartikel des ZGB und Personenrecht (3rd edn, Schulthess 2016). google scholar
  • İmre Z, Medenî Hukuka Giriş (3. Bası, Fakülteler Matbaası 1980). google scholar
  • Karslı A, Medeni Muhakeme Hukuku (5. Bası, Filiz 2020). google scholar
  • Kaser M, Römische Rechtsgeschichte (2nd edn, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1967). google scholar
  • Kaser M and Knütel R, Römisches Privatrecht (20th edn, Beck 2014). google scholar
  • Kaşak E, ‘Anonim Şirketlerin Haklı Sebeple Feshinde Şahsi Sebeplerin Değerlendirmeye Alınıp Alınamayacağı Hususunun Hâkimin Takdir Yetkisi Bakımından Değerlendirilmesi’ (2019) 23(3) AHBVÜHFD 161. google scholar
  • Köprülü B, Medeni Hukuk Genel Prensipler Kişinin Hukuku (2. Bası, Acar 1984). google scholar
  • Kramer E, Juristische Methodenlehre (6th edn, Stämpfli 2019). google scholar
  • Kuru B, İstinaf Sistemine Göre Yazılmış Medenî Usul Hukuku Ders Kitabı (Yetkin 2017). google scholar
  • Meier-Hayoz A, Der Richter als Gesetzgeber, Eine Besinnung auf die von den Gerichten befolgten Verfahrensgrundsätze im Bereiche der freien richterlichen Rechtsfindung gemäss Art. 1 Abs. 2 des schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuches (Juris 1951). google scholar
  • Meier-Hayoz A, ‘Art 1, 4’ in Meier-Hayoz A (ed), Berner Kommentar Kommentar zum schweizerischen Privatrecht Band I Einleitung und Personenrecht Einleitung Artikel 1-10 ZGB (Stämpfli 1966). google scholar
  • Meier-Hayoz A and Ruoss R, Einleitungsartikel des Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuches (3rd edn, Schulthess 1979). google scholar
  • Middendorf P and Grob B, ‘Art 1’ in Breitschmid P and Jungo A (eds), Handkommentar zum Schweizer Privatrecht Personen- und Familienrecht Art. 1–456 ZGB inkl. Partnerschaftsgesetz (3rd edn, Schulthess 2016). google scholar
  • Narbay Ş ve Özbay İ, ‘Türk Hukukunda Hukukî Mütalâanın Önemi ve Niteliği’ (2005) 23(2) Batider 117. google scholar
  • Oğuz A, ‘Türk Medenî Hukuku’nun Gelişim Çizgisi ve Karşılaştırmalı Hukukun Rolü’ (2006) 55(1) AÜHFD 195. google scholar
  • Oğuzman MK ve Barlas N, Medenî Hukuk (26. Bası, Vedat 2020). google scholar
  • Oğuzoğlu HC, Medenî Hukuk I Şahsın Hukuku (5. Bası, Yeni Desen 1963). google scholar
  • Özsunay E, Medenî Hukuka Giriş (5. Bası, Güryay 1986). google scholar
  • Pekcanıtez H, ‘Özel Uzman (Bilirkişi) Görüşü ve Değerlendirilmesi’ iç Pekcanıtez H, Tanrıver S, Özekes M ve Atalı M (eds), Prof. Dr. Saim Üstündağ’a Armağan (Adalet 2009) 397. google scholar
  • Pekcanıtez H, Atalay O ve Özekes M, Medenî Usûl Hukuku Ders Kitabı (8. Bası, On İki Levha 2020). google scholar
  • Pfaffinger M, ‘Art 1’ in Büchler A and Jakob D (eds), Kurzkommentar Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch (2nd edn, Helbing Lichtenhahn 2018). google scholar
  • Pichonnaz P, ‘İsviçre ve Roma Hukuku, Özet Halinde Bir Görünüş’ (2014) 16 DEÜHFD: Prof. Dr. Hakan Pekcanıtez’e Armağan (Dinçer N tr) 3149. google scholar
  • Reichel H, ‘Zu den Einleitungsartikeln des Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuches’ in Tatarin-Tarnheyden E (ed), Festgabe für Rudolf Stammler zum 70. Geburtstage am 19. Februar 1926 (Walter de Gruyter 1926) 281. google scholar
  • Riemer HM, Die Einleitungsartikel des Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuches (2nd edn, Stämpfli 2003). google scholar
  • Rusch A, ‘Zurück zum Eugen Bucher-Standard!’ (2014) 23(8) AjP 1136. google scholar
  • Saymen FH, Türk Medenî Hukuku, Cilt I Umumî Prensipler (3. Bası, Hak 1960). google scholar
  • Schmid J, ‘Was ist bewährte Lehre? Überlegungen zu Art. 1 Abs. 3 ZGB’ Schmid J (ed), Hommage für Peter Gauch (Schulthess 2016) 191. google scholar
  • Schnyder B, ‘Allgemeine Einleitung zu Art. 1-10 ZGB’ in Gauch P and Schmid J (eds), Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuch Einleitung Art. 1-7 ZGB (3rd edn, Schulthess 1998). google scholar
  • Schwander I, ‘Art 1’ in Kostkiewicz JK, Wolf S, Amstutz M and Fankhauser R (eds), ZGB Kommentar Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch (3rd edn, Orell Füssli 2016). google scholar
  • Schwarz AB, Medenî Hukuka Giriş (Velidedeoğlu HV tr, Üniversite 1942). google scholar
  • Serozan R, Medeni Hukuk Genel Bölüm Kişiler Hukuku (6. Bası, Vedat 2015). google scholar
  • Serozan R, Hukukta Yöntem – Mantık (2. Bası, Vedat 2017). google scholar
  • Tekinay SS, Medenî Hukukun Genel Esasları ve Gerçek Kişiler Hukuku (6. Bası, Filiz 1992). google scholar
  • Tuor P, Schnyder B, Schmid J and Jungo A, Das Schweizerische Zivilgesetzbuch (14th edn, Schulthess 2015). google scholar
  • Üçer M, Roma Hukuku’na Giriş (2. Bası, On İki Levha 2020). google scholar
  • Velidedeoğlu HV, Türk Medenî Hukuku Cilt 1 – Cüz 1 Umumî Esaslar (6. Bası, İstanbul 1959). google scholar
  • Werro F, ‘Art 1’ in Pichonnaz P and Foëx B (eds), Commentaire Romand Code Civil I Art. 1-359 CC (Helbing Lichtenhahn 2010) google scholar
  • Wiegand W, ‘Die privatrechtliche Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichts im Jahre 1994: Obligationenrecht’ (1996) 132 (4) ZBJV 319. google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Kaşak, F.E. (2021). Judge’s Authority to Consider Established Doctrine when Making Rulings (Art. 1/III TCC). Istanbul Law Review, 79(4), 1127-1167. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.4.0002


AMA

Kaşak F E. Judge’s Authority to Consider Established Doctrine when Making Rulings (Art. 1/III TCC). Istanbul Law Review. 2021;79(4):1127-1167. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.4.0002


ABNT

Kaşak, F.E. Judge’s Authority to Consider Established Doctrine when Making Rulings (Art. 1/III TCC). Istanbul Law Review, [Publisher Location], v. 79, n. 4, p. 1127-1167, 2021.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Kaşak, Fahri Erdem,. 2021. “Judge’s Authority to Consider Established Doctrine when Making Rulings (Art. 1/III TCC).” Istanbul Law Review 79, no. 4: 1127-1167. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.4.0002


Chicago: Humanities Style

Kaşak, Fahri Erdem,. Judge’s Authority to Consider Established Doctrine when Making Rulings (Art. 1/III TCC).” Istanbul Law Review 79, no. 4 (Jan. 2022): 1127-1167. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.4.0002


Harvard: Australian Style

Kaşak, FE 2021, 'Judge’s Authority to Consider Established Doctrine when Making Rulings (Art. 1/III TCC)', Istanbul Law Review, vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 1127-1167, viewed 17 Jan. 2022, https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.4.0002


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Kaşak, F.E. (2021) ‘Judge’s Authority to Consider Established Doctrine when Making Rulings (Art. 1/III TCC)’, Istanbul Law Review, 79(4), pp. 1127-1167. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.4.0002 (17 Jan. 2022).


MLA

Kaşak, Fahri Erdem,. Judge’s Authority to Consider Established Doctrine when Making Rulings (Art. 1/III TCC).” Istanbul Law Review, vol. 79, no. 4, 2021, pp. 1127-1167. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.4.0002


Vancouver

Kaşak FE. Judge’s Authority to Consider Established Doctrine when Making Rulings (Art. 1/III TCC). Istanbul Law Review [Internet]. 17 Jan. 2022 [cited 17 Jan. 2022];79(4):1127-1167. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.4.0002 doi: 10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.4.0002


ISNAD

Kaşak, FahriErdem. Judge’s Authority to Consider Established Doctrine when Making Rulings (Art. 1/III TCC)”. Istanbul Law Review 79/4 (Jan. 2022): 1127-1167. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.4.0002



TIMELINE


Submitted02.04.2021
Accepted24.11.2021
Published Online31.12.2021

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.