Search

Yargısal içtihatlarla gelişen sebep ikamesi, iptal davalarını inceleyen idari yargı organlarının, idarenin işlemini dayandırdığı sebebin hukuka aykırı olduğunu tespit etmesine rağmen yargılama sırasında tespit ettiği bir başka sebebi esas almak suretiyle işlemi iptal etmemesi olarak tarif edilebilir. Uygulamada ve öğretide çeşitli yönleriyle tartışılan sebep ikamesi, bu çalışmada silahların eşitliği ve çelişmeli yargılama ilkeleri bakımından ele alınacaktır. Silahların eşitliği ve çelişmeli yargılama ilkeleri adil yargılanma hakkının iki alt ilkesi olarak karşımıza çıkmakta olup, idari yargılama usulü bakımından da önemli güvenceleri barındırmaktadır. Silahların eşitliği ilkesi, yargılamanın tarafları arasında adil dengenin kurulmasını ve bir taraf lehine diğer taraf aleyhine olacak uygulamalardan kaçınılmasını amaç edinirken, çelişmeli yargılama ilkesi ise dava dosyasına dâhil olan her türlü delil, görüş ve açıklamalardan tarafların bilgi sahibi olması ve bunlar hakkında görüş sunabilmesi imkânını sağlamayı amaçlar. Söz konusu ilkelerin sebep ikamesi bakımından ele alınmasıyla dikkat çekici sonuçlar ortaya çıkmaktadır. Bugüne kadar öğreti ve özellikle Anayasa Mahkemesi tarafından çelişmeli yargılama ilkesi yönüyle ele alınmış olan sebep ikamesi, bu ilkenin yanında silahların eşitliği ilkesi yönüyle de ele alınarak, uygulamanın bu ilke bakımından neden olabileceği sakıncaların tespit edilmesine çalışılmıştır., Substitution of motives improved by judicial case laws, can be explained as the administrative judicial bodies examining annulment actions, not rescinding the action according to another motive they have determined during the trial, although they have determined that the motive on which the administration bases its action, is unlawful. The substitution of motives discussed in both the practice and the doctrine from various aspects, will be studied in terms of equality of arms and adversarial trial principles. Equality of arms and adversarial trial are two sub-principles of right to a fair trial and provide significant guarantees for administrative trial procedures. While the principle of equality of arms aims to establish a fair balance between the parties in the trial and to avoid substantial disadvantage of a party vis-à-vis the other party, the principle of adversarial trial aims to ensure that the parties know and discuss any evidence, claim or explanation included in the case file. Remarkable results are obtained by studying the abovementioned principles in terms of substitution of motives. The substitution of motives, which has been dealt with by the doctrine and especially by the Constitutional Court in terms of the principle of adversarial trial, will be studied in terms of the principle of equality of arms in addition to this principle, and it has been tried to determine the disadvantages which the practice may cause in terms of this principle.

The human right to an interpreter for minority-language speakers in criminal proceedings is protected and provided for under European and Maltese law. This study considers whether the provision of interpreting has an impact on the criminal trial in Malta. To answer this question, two lines of inquiry were followed in the three cases studied: firstly, on the particular communicative context, to understand contextual expectations vis-à-vis court interpreting and secondly, on the roles interpreters adopt in court. Ethnographic research was undertaken and data collected through observation during court hearings, recorded field notes and the transcribed audio recordings of three case studies. An interdisciplinary approach was adopted, through the use of elements from 1) the law, 2) forensic linguistics, 3) interactional sociolinguistics, and 4) critical discourse analysis, which were applied in the analysis of collected data. The data show that interpreter action in court does not always meet specific contextual expectations i.e. the interpreter as a “conduit”, or as a “faithful renderer of utterances”, with a resulting impact on the context in both form and content. Other roles based on interpreter action may sometimes be observed, but difficulty was found in matching observed action with roles established in the literature. ispartof: The Interpreters Newsletter vol:26 pages:97-115 status: published

Cet article examine les différentes manières par lesquelles les victimes de crimes ont pu être intégrées à une procédure accusatoire dans des ressorts de common law. Le dépôt d’une déclaration de victime a été la principale voie par laquelle les victimes se sont vu octroyer un certain statut dans les procédures judiciaires. Récemment, l’importance croissante des avocats des victimes dans divers ressorts de common law témoigne du souci accru de donner à celles-ci un vrai statut et des droits effectifs en termes de représentation juridique. Un avocat peut ainsi les accompagner tout au long de la procédure judiciaire, des audiences avant procès jusqu’à la détermination de la peine et aux procédures d’appel. L’expérience des tribunaux de droit civil pourrait aussi contribuer au succès de l’intégration des avocats des victimes dans des modèles accusatoires ; des avocats dont la notoriété grandissante traduit une avancée significative pour un droit pénal qui, en concevant les victimes comme parties prenantes des systèmes de justice de type accusatoire, attache de plus en plus d’importance à valoriser leur capacité d’action., This article examines the various ways in which victims have been integrated into adversarial proceedings in common law jurisdictions. The provision of victim impact statements has been the main way through which victims of crime have been afforded some role in court proceedings. The recent rise of victim lawyers across various common law jurisdictions holds greater promise by granting the victim actual standing and rights of representation by private counsel throughout the trial process – from pre-trial hearings through to sentencing and appeal. Comparisons to civil law jurisdictions will suggest how victim lawyers may be successfully integrated into adversarial systems. Victim lawyers will be examined as an important development in criminal justice that provides for the agency of the victim as a significant stakeholder in adversarial systems of justice., Este artículo analiza las diversas formas en que las víctimas de crímenes se han podido integrar en el procedimiento acusatorio de las jurisdicciones regidas por el derecho anglosajón (common law). La presentación de una declaración ante el tribunal ha sido la principal vía para que las víctimas obtengan un cierto estatuto en los procedimientos judiciales. La creciente presencia de abogados de las víctimas en diversas jurisdicciones de derecho anglosajón es expresión de la cada vez mayor preocupación por otorgarles un verdadero estatuto y derechos reales de representación jurídica en el procedimiento judicial, desde las audiencias preliminares hasta la sentencia y los procedimientos de apelación. La comparación con la experiencia de los tribunales de derecho civil contribuye también al éxito de la integración de los abogados de las víctimas en los modelos acusatorios. Se analiza la importancia de los abogados de las víctimas como un avance importante en la justicia penal para considerar a éstas como una parte importante en los sistemas de justicia de tipo acusatorio.