Mahkeme Dışında Yapılan Sulh ve Yargılamaya Etkisi
Ayşe KılınçMedenî usûl hukukumuza hâkim olan tasarruf ilkesine göre, taraflar -kural olarak- uyuşmazlığı sona erdirmek hususunda tasarruf hakkına sahiptir. Tarafların uyuşmazlığı sona erdirebilmelerine imkan sağlayan kurumlardan biri de sulhtur. Sulh, esas itibariyle tarafların aralarındaki uyuşmazlığa kısmen veya tamamen son verdikleri bir sözleşme olarak tanımlanabilir. Hukukumuzda sulh ile ilgili düzenleme HMK’nın md. 313 vd. yer almaktadır. Ancak belirtilen maddelerdeki düzenlemeler, mahkeme huzurunda yapılan sulhe ilişkindir. Ayrıca tarafların mahkeme dışında sulh olmaları da mümkündür. Buna göre, mahkeme dışında yapılan sulh, tarafların aralarındaki uyuşmazlığı sona erdirmek amacıyla karşılıklı fedakarlıkta bulunmak suretiyle mahkeme dışında yaptıkları bir sözleşmedir. Mahkeme dışında yapılan sulh sözleşmesi hukukî niteliği itibariyle bir maddî hukuk sözleşmesidir. Tarafların mahkeme dışında sulh sözleşmesi yapabilmeleri için derdest bir davanın varlığı gerekmez. Ayrıca derdest bir dava olsa bile mahkeme dışında yapılan sulh sözleşmesi ile devam eden yargılama etkilenmez. Mahkeme dışında yapılan sulh sözleşmesi ile devam eden yargılamanın etkilenebilmesi için mahkeme dışında yapılan sulhün, mahkeme huzurunda yapılan sulhe dönüştürülmesi gerekir.
Out of Judicial Settlement and Its Effect on Trial
Ayşe KılınçUnder the “dispositional control of the parties principle” which is one of the ruling principles of Civil Procedure Law, parties of a legal dispute have right to end it (in principle). One of the dispute resolution ways in this manner is to make an settlement. Settlement can be defined as an agreement in which parties completely or partially ending the dispute mutually. In the Turkish Civil Procedure Law, settlement is regulated under the Article 313 the following articles of Civil Procedure Code. But, these provisions only covers the in-judicial settlements. Also, there is an another option as “out of judicial settlement” for the parties as well. Out of judicial settlement is an agreement out of the court in which the parties agreed to end the dispute completely or partially at mutual interest point they considered. Out of judicial settlement is an substantive law agreement. There is no necessity of an outstanding ongoing case process at this point. Additionally, an ongoing trial process would not affect the out of judicial settlement. It is needed a transformation of the out of judicial settlement to an injudicial settlement to affect an ongoing trial at the same dispute.
One of the principles that Civil Procedure Law based on is the “dispositional control of the parties principle”. Under this principle, parties’ have the right solve private law disputes according to their dispositions. Under the principle, dispute parties are free to decide choose or not to choose litigation as way of resolution. Principle also covers to end the dispute by an settlement (in principle). One of the dispute ending options under the principle is the parties settlement agreement. Settlement agreement, generally, is an agreement in which parties agree to ending the dispute with mutual compromise. In other words, it can be also defined as an agreement in which parties completely or partially ending the dispute mutually. Settlement agreement, regulated as an stand alone regulation for the first time in the Article 313/1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) numbered 6100. Under the Article, settlement agreement means that the parties agreement on to ending the dispute completely or partially in an outstanding case. This definition only covers the in-judicial settlement. Because the definition requires a settlement in front of the court. Out of judicial/court settlement is not regulated under the CCP. Because, this kind of settlement fall in the area of the Turkish Code of Obligations. Out of judicial settlement is an agreement out of the court in which the parties agreed to end the dispute completely or partially at mutual interest point they considered. There is no necessity of an outstanding ongoing case process at this point. Additionally, an ongoing trial process would not affect the out of judicial settlement. It is needed a transformation of the out of judicial settlement to an in-judicial settlement to affect an ongoing trial at the same dispute. Out of judicial settlement is an substantive law agreement. This agreement is fall in the provisions (General Provisions) of the Turkish Code of Obligations. Out of judicial settlement agreement is not be need to be made in written because of the “freedom as to form” principle of the Turkish Code of Obligations. If the out of judicial settlement transformed to an in-judicial settlement it could affect an ongoing trial at the same dispute. Parties convey the out of judicial settlement to the court and then court get in record the agreement. After that moment, out of judicial settlement is evaluated as an in-judicial settlement. It is not needed that the whole provisions of the out of judicial settlement to get in recorded in the trial documents. Article 315/1 of the CCP regulates the provisions on effects and solutions of settlement agreements. Under this provisions when the out of judicial settlement transformed to an in-judicial settlement it would has the same legal power and solutions of it. The first solution of this transformation is the ending of existing dispute, in other words ending of the existing court trial. The second important outcome of the in-judicial settlement agreement is that it would have the same legal effect of final court decision. In-judicial settlement has an important another legal effect that it would has the power of the final court decisions under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code Article 38. If the out of judicial settlement transformed to an in-judicial settlement it would has the same affect as well.
