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.

Yüksek Lisans Öğrencisi, İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim Üniversitesi, Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü, Kamu Hukuku Bölümü, avmehmetkopuz@hotmail.com, ORCİD 0000-0002-0935-6877 Adil yargılanma hakkı, bir insan hakkı olarak günümüz muhakeme hukukunda tarafların eşit şartlarda yargılanmasını sağlayan bir haktır. Bu hak aynı zamanda insan haklarının devletlerce korunmasını sağlayan hukuk devleti ilkesinin de bir unsurudur. Adil yargılanma hakkının kısaca tanımı olarak, bir muhakeme vetiresinde tarafların hem hukuki hem de fiili olarak tam eşitlik halinde olmasına denir. Bu hak ile ilgili bir netice şudur ki, bu hak verilen karardan çok muhakeme aşamasındaki usuli işlemlerle ilgilidir. Muhakeme vetiresinde hem fiili hem de hukuki olarak, taraflar hakkında eşitlik ilkesine aykırı bir şekilde verilen kararın adil olması olası değildir. Bu bağlamda çelişmeli yargılama hakkı sayesinde, yargılamanın tez, antitez ve sentez vetiresinden geçerek verilen kararın adil olması sağlanacaktır. Çelişmeli yargılanma hakkı sayesinde taraflar muhakemeye etkin şekilde katılıp kararı etkileme şansını elde edeceklerdir. Bu sayede verilen kararın adil olması sağlanacaktır. Devlet sırrı niteliğindeki tanık anlatımları ve belgelerin tarafların bilgisine sunulmaması, bu sebeple tarafların görüş, yorum ve ispat imkanının mümkün olmaması çelişmeli yargılanma hakkını ihlal edebilecektir. Bu noktada makalede belirtilen yöntemlerin uygulanması ile çelişmeli yargılanma hakkı korunabilecektir. The right to a fair trial is a right that enables the parties to be tried under equal conditions as a human right in today's procedural law. At the same time , this right is also an element of the rule of law, which is the protection of human rights by the state. In a brief description, the right to a fair trial means the full equality between the parties both in legal terms and de facto in a procedural process. A conclusion about this right is that it relates more to the procedural action during the trial than the decision given. It is unlikely that the decision given during the procedural process about the parties that are unequal both legally and de facto will be fair. In this context, the judgement will be rendered fair due to the right of adversarial trial by going through the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis process of the trial. The parties will have the opportunity to participate in the proceedings effectively and to influence the decision thanks to the principle of adversarial trial. In this way, it will be ensured that the decision given is fair. The fact that the witness statements and documents, which have the value of state secrets, are not submitted to the information of the parties and therefore it is not possible for the parties to provide opinions, comments, and proofs may violate the right to an adversarial trial. At this point, the right to an adversarial trial may be protected by applying the methods mentioned in the article.

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 will be tried to determine the disadvantages which the practice may cause in terms of this principle.

This paper compares the questioning of witnesses and defendants in American and Danish courtroom interaction on the basis of one American and three Danish criminal trials. A total of 780 questions are analysed in terms of their morphosyntactic properties as well as speech act functions. Following a general discussion of courtroom questioning and the notions of coercion and control, as well as an outline of legal cultural differences and similarities between American and Danish courtroom interaction, a coding system is developed for the linguistic comparison, and initial quantitative results of the comparison are discussed. Particular attention is given to declarative questions and the ‘communicative’ speech act function, as the linguistic and interactional features of these are shown to be explored in quite different ways in accordance with the legal and cultural contexts in which the courtroom questioning takes place.

That the process of delivering evidence orally in court can prove stressful and intimidating is a point well established within mainstream victimological discourse.1 However, what is insufficiently acknowledged, particularly within the Irish academy’s literature on this topic, is the extent to which this sense of distress is heightened for victims of crime with an intellectual disability. In seeking to address this research lacuna, this paper will consider the degree to which the procedural norms of Ireland’s adversarial trial system, and the epistemic values which underpin those norms, pose certain exaggerated barriers to the realisation of justice for members of this vulnerable victim constituency. Owing to their limited cognitive and linguistic development, these victims face significant biomedical or ontological difficulties in responding to experiences of victimhood. Crucially, however, these ontological difficulties are compounded both procedurally and attitudinally by an adversarial system of trial which is predicated upon a ‘contest morphology’ and controlled by a legal community that is overwhelmingly preoccupied with mainstream accounts of victimhood.

An open access version of this output is available by following the URI Abstract: This article considers the current state of the law in respect of Muslim women who wish to wear the Niqaab while appearing in court. It reviews the approach of the courts in England and Wales to this issue cul-minating in the decision of R v D in September 2013 and compares this to the approach of other common law jurisdictions. The article considers whether the popular approach of placing the need to see the 'demeanour' of a witness above the right of that witness to manifest her religion is properly founded. The decision in R v D is discussed against the framework of article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights and concludes that the requirement that it was neither necessary nor proportionate to place a precondition on the defendant in R v D that she removed her veil if she wished to testify in her own defence.

Submitted by Eliana null (leila@stj.jus.br) on 2017-12-05T12:10:24Z No. of bitstreams: 2 adopcion_proceso_penal_saravia.pdf: 529229 bytes, checksum: 879c60421d4d61c4b7568d44c1586ce7 (MD5) license.txt: 1239 bytes, checksum: c9b4c351324448672315a00808efb725 (MD5) Approved for entry into archive by Rafaella Monterei (rcarine@stj.jus.br) on 2018-01-09T18:31:39Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 2 adopcion_proceso_penal_saravia.pdf: 529229 bytes, checksum: 879c60421d4d61c4b7568d44c1586ce7 (MD5) license.txt: 1239 bytes, checksum: c9b4c351324448672315a00808efb725 (MD5) Made available in DSpace on 2018-01-09T18:31:39Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 adopcion_proceso_penal_saravia.pdf: 529229 bytes, checksum: 879c60421d4d61c4b7568d44c1586ce7 (MD5) license.txt: 1239 bytes, checksum: c9b4c351324448672315a00808efb725 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017 Examina a reforma do Código de Processo Penal na província de Salta na Argentina.

In its most conventional and general sense, plea bargaining refers to pre-trial negotiations between the prosecution and the defence during which the accused agrees to plead guilty in return for certain concessions promised by the prosecutor: usually to drop or reduce some charges, or to recommend a specific sentence or to refrain from making any sentence recommendation. Since ultimately both affect the dispositional phase of the criminal proceedings by affecting the sentence, plea bargaining in this project will be taken to imply the waiver of the right to a trial in exchange for reduction in sentence.Plea bargaining is widely resorted to in the United States of America, so much so that ninety to ninety five percent of the criminal cases end with negotiated agreements rather than courtroom trials. By virtue of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005, plea bargaining has been introduced in India by way of insertion of Chapter XXIA into the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 [hereinafter Cr. P.C.], which has come into effect from July 5, 2006.The introduction of plea bargaining in the Indian criminal justice system is largely a response to the deplorable status quo, reflected in the delay in disposal of criminal cases and appeals, the huge arrears of cases and the appalling plight of under trial prisoners in jails. Critics of the plea bargaining system, however, allege that the system leads to excessive and undeserved leniency in the sentencing of admitted criminals, dilutes the deterrent effect of law and is coercive insofar as it induces the accused either to plead guilty in return for a lighter sentence or to waive the right to a trial in return for some other advantage. Others simply contend that the outcome of a criminal case should not be affected by lack of resources and that haggling over the "price" of a guilty plea is in principle wrong.No doubt efficiency and speedy disposal of cases are important and desirable goals. The question that is considered in this note is whether they are worth the perceived costs of plea bargaining. To this end, an attempt is made to examine whether there is any inherent impropriety in the system of plea negotiation, as also to understand the Indian avatar of plea bargaining and appraise it in view of the traditional objections to any system of plea bargaining.

Non-application of certain provisions of the Evidence Act to parenting proceedings - implications of s 69ZT and related provisions in Division 12 A of the Family Law Act - the less adversarial trial (LAT) process.