Hâkimin Karar Verirken Bilimsel Görüşlerden Yararlanması (TMK m. 1/III)
Fahri Erdem KaşakTürk 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.
Judge’s Authority to Consider Established Doctrine when Making Rulings (Art. 1/III TCC)
Fahri Erdem KaşakAccording 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.
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.
