Effect of Completion of Judgments on Finalization and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Procedure Law
Zeynep BahadırArticle 305/A of the Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 6100) was enacted pursuant to the Law on Amending the Code of Civil Procedure and Other Laws (Law No. 7251), and the institution of “completion of judgments” was introduced into our legal system. According to the article, “within one month from the notification of the judgment, each party may request a supplementary ruling from the court for matters left undecided partly or as a whole, even though they were asserted or ought to be resolved ex officio. Appellate remedies are available against these rulings.” Although this article, which allows the court to supplement its previous judgment, is completely new to the civil judiciary, it is actually an adaptation of article 437/4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows this procedure in arbitration. Through completion of judgments, a supplementary ruling may be requested from the court to avert any omission in the judgment if a claim in accumulation was left unresolved or if such judicial costs as the attorney’s fee were not decided upon. This legislation serves the principle of procedural economy and the realization of a more effective legal protection. However, because completion of judgments is a brand-new institution in the civil judiciary with an ambiguous nature, several problems must be addressed. These problems can be classified into two categories: the possibility of contradictory judgments due to separate appellate remedies for both rulings, and the question of whether these judgments may be executed separately and, if so, whether they may be joined in the enforcement procedure. This paper examines these issues and presents possible solutions.
Medenî Yargıda Hükmün Tamamlanmasının Hükmün Kesinleşmesi ve Cebrî İcrası Bakımından Etkisi
Zeynep Bahadır7251 sayılı Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu ile Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılması Hakkında Kanun ile 6100 sayılı Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’na 305/A maddesi eklenmiş ve devlet yargısı bakımından hukukumuza “hükmün tamamlanması” müessesesi girmiştir. Bu maddeye göre “taraflardan her biri, nihaî kararın tebliğinden itibaren bir ay içinde, yargılamada ileri sürülmesine veya kendiliğinden hükme geçirilmesi gerekli olmasına rağmen hakkında tamamen veya kısmen karar verilmeyen hususlarda, ek karar verilmesini isteyebilir. Bu karara karşı kanun yoluna başvurulabilir”. Hükmün tamamlanmasına ilişkin bu düzenleme, Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 437’nci maddesinin dördüncü fıkrasında tahkim yargısı için mevcut olan hakem kararlarının tamamlanması müessesesinin devlet yargısı bakımından kabul edilmiş hâlidir. Hükmün tamamlanması müessesesi ile örneğin yargılama giderlerine veya vekâlet ücretine ilişkin hükümde eksiklik mevcutsa, mahkemeden unutulan bu hususla ilgili ek karar verilmesi istenebilir. Keza dava yığılmasında taleplerden biri hakkında karar verilmesinin unutulması ihtimalinde, mahkemeden hükmün tamamlanması talep edilebilir. Bu düzenleme sayesinde usûl ekonomisi sağlanmakta ve etkin bir hukukî korunma gerçekleşmektedir. Ancak hükmün tamamlanmasına ilişkin düzenlemenin devlet yargısı bakımından yeni olması ve düzenlemede müesseseye ilişkin birtakım muğlaklıklar bulunması sebebiyle meydana gelebilecek ve cevaplanması gereken bazı sorunlar mevcuttur. Bu sorunlardan ilki, verilen ilk karar ile hükmün tamamlanması sonucu verilen ek karara karşı kanun yoluna başvuru sürelerinin ayrı işlemesi ve bu kararların ayrı kesinleşmesi sebebiyle çelişkili kararların ortaya çıkma ihtimalidir. Bir diğeri ise bu kararların birbirlerinden ayrı icra edilip edilemeyeceği ve kararlar ayrı icra edilirse bu icra takiplerinin birleştirilip birleştirilemeyeceği şeklinde özetlenebilir. Bu çalışmada da ilk karar ile ek kararın kesinleşmesi ile cebrî icrası bakımından ifade edilen problemler çerçevesinde sorunun tespiti yapılmış ve çözüm önerilerimiz sunulmaya çalışılmıştır.
Article 305/A of the Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 6100) was enacted pursuant to the Law on Amending the Code of Civil Procedure and Other Laws (Law No. 7251). According to the article, “within one month from the notification of the judgment, each party may request a supplementary ruling from the court for matters left undecided partly or as a whole, even though they were asserted or ought to be resolved ex officio. Appellate remedies are available against these rulings.” This is, in fact, an adaptation of article 437/4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows this procedure in arbitration.
If a deficiency is found in the judgment, it can be eliminated through the completion of judgment. In other words, a supplementary ruling may be requested from the court to avert any omission in the judgment if a claim in accumulation was left unresolved or if such judicial costs as the attorney’s fee were not decided upon.
This legislation serves the principle of procedural economy and the realization of more effective legal protection. However, because completion of judgments is a new institution in the civil judiciary with an ambiguous nature, several problems that arise in the finalization and enforcement of judgments must be addressed. They can be classified into two categories: the possibility of contradictory judgments due to separate appellate remedies for both rulings, and the question of whether these judgments may be executed separately and, if so, whether they may be joined in the enforcement procedure.
Considering the identified problems, this study reaches the following conclusions:
Because of the separate appellate remedies for both rulings, the first and the supplementary rulings are also finalized independent of each other. In this context, if separate appellate remedies are applied against both rulings, it would be appropriate to join them in the remedies procedure. If appellate remedies are not applied against the first ruling but they are applied against the supplementary ruling, the first ruling constitutes the final judgment for the supplementary ruling. In the opposite case, if appellate remedies are not applied against the supplementary ruling but the first ruling is reversed as a result of the appellate remedy review, the conclusion must be reached by making a binary distinction:
On the one hand, if the supplementary ruling is independent of the first ruling, it is not possible for the judgments to affect each other, and there is no problem with the finalization of the judgment.
On the other hand, if the first and the supplementary rulings affect each other, with the finalization of the supplementary ruling, a final judgment occurs in terms of the merits of the legal relationship. Therefore, in the appellate remedies against the first ruling, the first ruling cannot be reversed. However, if the first ruling is reversed by disregarding the final decision, and this ruling becomes final, there are two final judgments that contradict each other in terms of the merits of the legal relationship, and a retrial of the second final judgment should be resorted to. However, if the supplementary ruling is only about judicial costs or attorney’s fees, the appellate remedies against the first ruling also affect the supplementary ruling.
In our opinion, it is possible for the first and the supplementary rulings to be executed separately. These judgments are separate final decisions, which are finalized separately and have separate appellate remedies. However, if the supplementary ruling is related to judicial costs or an accessory of the subject of the case that cannot be executed before it becomes final, enforcement is not possible before the first ruling is finalized.
If both rulings are executed separately, the joinder of enforcement procedures might be requested. However, even if these enforcement procedures are joined, they are independent enforcements.
The issues explained above must be clarified in the Turkish legislation.
