Tıbbi müdahalede varsayılan rıza
Küçük Resim Yok
Tarih
2012
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi
Erişim Hakkı
CC0 1.0 Universal
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Günümüzde denetimsiz bir takdir yetkisinden sözetmek olanağı bulunmamaktadır. Doğal olarak idarenin takdir yetkisini denetleyebilen hâkimin, kendi takdir yetkisini kullanma şekli de bir başka hâkim ya da hâkimler grubunca denetlenecektir. “Hukuka uygunluk denetimi ile sınırlı olmak”, “yerindelik denetimi yasağı” ve “hâkimin idarenin yerine geçerek karar oluşturma yasağı” takdir yetkisi kullanılarak tesis edilen işlemlerin hukuka uygunluğunun belirlenmesinde, idari yargı hâkiminin yetkisinin sınırıdır. Hukukumuz açısından ise, denetim organı durumundaki Danıştay’ın işin hukuksal yönüne bakacağı İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu’nda belirtilmiştir. Danıştay’ın denetiminin amaca uygun olması için, bozma kararlarında hâkimlere yön verici nitelikte gerekçe gösterilmesi gereklidir.
In recent times, the opportunity to mentioned about an uncontrolled discretion power cannot be found. Naturally, a judge who can review over the discretion of administration, has a discretion power which would be reviewed by another judge or a group of judges. In accordance to determine administrative proceedings which are established with administrative discretion to the compliance of the law, the limits of the discretion power which belongs to a judge of the administrative jurisdiction are “being limited with compliance audit with laws”, “prohibition of expediency audit” and “prohibition of decision making by the judge instead of the administration”. In terms of our law, the Code of Procedures of Administrative Jurisdiction states that Danıştay which is an auditing organ of administrative jurisdiction, must just control issues in law perspective. In accordance to the suitability between the purpose and audit of Danıştay, it is necessary to show justification which is guiding judges in making the decision of reversal.
In recent times, the opportunity to mentioned about an uncontrolled discretion power cannot be found. Naturally, a judge who can review over the discretion of administration, has a discretion power which would be reviewed by another judge or a group of judges. In accordance to determine administrative proceedings which are established with administrative discretion to the compliance of the law, the limits of the discretion power which belongs to a judge of the administrative jurisdiction are “being limited with compliance audit with laws”, “prohibition of expediency audit” and “prohibition of decision making by the judge instead of the administration”. In terms of our law, the Code of Procedures of Administrative Jurisdiction states that Danıştay which is an auditing organ of administrative jurisdiction, must just control issues in law perspective. In accordance to the suitability between the purpose and audit of Danıştay, it is necessary to show justification which is guiding judges in making the decision of reversal.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
İdarenin takdir yetkisinin denetlenmesi, Hukuka uygunluk denetimi, Yerindelik, Gerekçe, Judicial review of administrative discretion, Compliance audit with laws, Expediency, Justification
Kaynak
Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayını
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
Sayı
Künye
Dinçkol, H. A. (2012). Tıbbi müdahalede varsayılan rıza. Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, 19(2), s. 1567-1594.
