ALMAN İDARİ YARGILAMA HUKUKUNDA İPTAL DAVASINDA SUBJEKTİF KAMUSAL HAK İHLALİ KOŞULU

Yıl 2025, Sayı: 75, 319 - 350

Yasin Sönmez

Öz

Bu çalışmada, Alman idari yargılama hukukunda iptal davası, subjektif kamusal hak kavramı, iptal davası açmada aranan subjektif kamusal hak ihlali koşulu ve çevre ile ilgili uyuşmazlıklarda AB hukuku ve Alman hukuku arasında bu koşul nedeniyle ortaya çıkan uyumsuzluk konuları incelenmektedir. Fransız hukukundan esinlenmiş olan idari yargılama hukukumuzun penceresinden bakıldığında, Alman hukukunda iptal davasının yalnızca bireysel idari işlemlere karşı açılabilen, kural olarak yürütmenin kendiliğinden durduğu, işlemin hukuka aykırılığının subjektif kamusal hak ihlali ile birlikte denetlendiği subjektif nitelik arz eden bir dava olması; üstelik idarenin açık ret yanıtları ve hareketsiz kaldığı durumlar için yükümlülük davası adı altında başka bir davanın öngörülmüş olması, bir dizi ilgi çekici husus olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Ayrıca Alman modelinin, öngördüğü subjektif kamusal hak ihlali koşuluyla Türk ve Fransız sistemlerinden daha katı olduğunu ileri sürmek mümkün olmakla birlikte, AB hukukunun etkisiyle, Özellikle ABAD’ın Trianel kararından sonra iptal davasına erişimde kısmi esneklikler de yaşandığını söylemek mümkündür. Çalışma, Türk idari yargılama hukukundan oldukça farklı özellikler arz eden Alman idari yargılama hukukunda iptal davası, bu davada aranan subjektif dava ehliyeti ile bunun tanımlanmasında rol oynayan subjektif kamusal hak kavramı konuları hakkında okuyucuya genel bir perspektif sunmayı hedeflemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Alman idari yargılama hukuku , İptal davası , Subjektif kamusal hak kavramı , Subjektif kamusal hak ihlali , Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı.

The Condition of Violation of Subjective Public Rights in the Action for Annulment in German Administrative Litigation Procedure Law

Öz

This study examines the action for annulment (Anfechtungsklage) in German administrative litigation procedure law, the concept of subjective public right, the subjective public right violation condition required for filing an action for annulment and the resulting incompatibility between EU law and German law in environmental disputes due to this requirement. From the perspective of Turkish administrative litigation procedure law, which is inspired by French law, several interesting points emerge regarding the German legal system: action for annulment can be brought only against individual administrative acts, the contested act is automatically suspended as a rule, and the act’s unlawfulness is reviewed together with an alleged infringement of a subjective public right. Moreover, German law provides a separate “action for the issue of an administrative act (Verpflichtungsklage)” for cases in which the administration issues an express refusal or remains inactive. Furthermore, it is possible to argue that the German model is stricter than both the Turkish and French systems due to its requirement of a violation of subjective public rights. However, under the influence of EU law—particularly following the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) Trianel decision—it is also possible to observe that there have been partial flexibilities in access to actions for annulment. This study aims to provide the reader with a general perspective on the action for annulment in German administrative litigation procedure law which exhibits quite different characteristics from Turkish administrative procedure law. It also seeks to explore the requirement of standing in this action and the concept of subjective public rights that plays a crucial role in defining it.

Anahtar Kelimeler

German administrative litigation procedure law; Action for annulment; Concept of subjective public right; Violation of subjective public rights; Court of Justice of the European Union.

Kaynakça

• Auby J M / Fromont M, Les recours contre les actes administratifs dans les pays de la Communauté économique européenne, Dalloz, Paris, 1971.
• Auby J M / Fromont M, Les recours juridictionnels contre les actes administratifs spécialement économiques dans le droit des États membres de la CEE, Rapport Final, Collection Etudes, Série Concurrence - Rapprochement des législations no 12, Brüksel, 1971.
• Autexier C, “La Juridiction Administrative En Allemagne Depuis Le XIXe Siecle”, no. 19, 1998, Paris, Revue d'histoire des facultes de droit et de la science juridique, ss. 65-86.
• Azrak A Ü, “İptal Davalarının Objektif Niteliği Üzerine Düşünceler”, Onar Armağanı, İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları, İstanbul, 1977, ss. 145-155.
• Becker F, "The Development of German Administrative Law." George Mason Law Review, vol. 24, no. 2, 2017, ss. 453-476.
• Bigot G, Introduction historique au droit administratif depuis 1789, Coll. Droit Fondamental, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 2002.
• Blankenagel A, "The Concept of Subjective Rights as the Focal Point of German Administrative Law.", 11, Tel Aviv, 1992, Tel Aviv University Studies in Law, ss. 79-96.
• Chapus R, Droit du contentieux administratif, 13. Bası, Montchrestien, Paris, 2001.
• Duran L, “İdari İptal Davası Olağan ve Genel Bir Başvuru Yoludur”, C. 19-20, 1997-1998, İnsan Hakları Yıllığı, ss. 187-195.
• Eckertz-Höfer M, “Administrative Review: Learning From Different Perspectives”, The Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions in Germany, Australian National Conference, Hunter Valley, 2010, ss. 1-18.
• Erath F, “Scope of Judicial Review in German Administrative Law”, 8(2), Stellenbosch, 1997, Stellenbosch Law Review, ss. 192-204.
• European Parliament, Standing up for your right(s) in Europe-Locus standi, 2012, s. 22, (www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2012/462478/IPOLJURI_ET(2012)462478_EN.pdf)
• Fischer A, “Rapport pour l'Allemagne fédérale”, La notion de l'intérêt en contentieux administratif (intérêt personnel, intérêt collectif, l'action populaire) notamment en matière d'environnement,
• L’ACA-Europe, 8e colloque du 12 au 15 mai 1982, Kopenhag, 1982, ss. 55-70. (https://aca-europe.eu/images/media_kit/colloquia/1982/germany.pdf)
• Fischer A, “Le contrôle juridictionnel de la légalité de l’action administrative en République fédérale d’Allemagne”, N°30, 1984, Revue française d'administration publique, ss. 185-195.
• Fischer A, “Aspects historiques : l'évolution de la justice administrative en Allemagne et en France au XIX e et au XX e siècle et les influences réciproques sur cette évolution”, 52e Année, No. 7, 1999,
• La Revue Administrative, Presses Universitaires de France, ss. 6-23.
• Forsthoff E, Traité de Droit Administratif Allemand, Çev. Michel Fromont, Bruylant, Brüksel, 1969.
• Fromont M, “Regards d'un juriste français sur la juridiction administrative allemande”, La Revue administrative, PUF, 52e Année, No. 7, 1999, ss. 25-35.
• Foulquier N, Les droits publics subjectifs des administrés, Dalloz, 2003, Paris.
• Gaillet A, “Allemagne”, in. L'acte administratif à portée générale et son contrôle juridictionnel, (Ed. Benoît Delaunay), Société de législation comparée, 2015, ss. 19-36.
• Görisch C, Effective legal protection in European order, The Principle of Effective Legal Protection in Administrative Law, (Eds. Zoltán Szente, Konrad Lachmayer), Routledge, London, 2016, ss. 29-41.
• Greve M S, "The Non-Reformation of Administrative Law: Standing to Sue and Public Interest Litigation in West German Environmental Law", Cornell International Law Journal, vol. 22, no. 2, 1989, ss. 197-244.
• Groh T, “L’intérêt à agir dans le contentieux administratif allemand”, L'accès au juge: Recherche sur l'effectivité d'un droit, (Eds. Virginie Donier, Béatrice Lapérou-Scheneider), Bruylant, Brüksel, 2013, ss. 339-351.
• Günday M, İdari Yargılama Hukuku, Turhan Kitabevi, Ankara, 2022.
• Güneş A M, “Aarhus Sözleşmesi üzerine bir inceleme”, C. XIV, Y. 2010, S.1, Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, ss. 299-333.
• Günther C, “Rapport pour l'Allemagne”, La Justice Administrative En Europe, Colloque organisé le 16 mars 2007 à la Maison du Barreau (Paris) par l’Association des Conseils d’Etat et des Juridictions administratives suprêmes de l’U.E., le Conseil d’Etat (France), la Mission de recherche Droit et Justice, la Faculté de droit et des sciences économiques de Limoges, l’Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris I) avec le soutien de TAIEX, Commission européenne, s. 10, (https://www.aca-europe.eu/fr/eurtour/i/countries/germany/germany_fr.pdf)
• Habigt L/ Hamacher L/ Tryjanowski A/ Zschiesche M/ Schmidt A/ Heß F/ Teßmer D, Abschlussbericht-Wissenschaftliche Unterstützung des Rechts-schutzes in Umweltangelegenheiten in der 19. Legislaturperiode, Umweltbundesamt, Dessau-Roßlau, 2021.
• Hohenlohe-Oehringen D zu, “The principle of effective legal protection in German administrative law”, The Principle of Effective Legal Protection in Administrative Law, (Eds. Zoltán Szente, Konrad Lachmayer), Routledge, London, 2016, ss. 122-157.
• Jouanjan O, “Les droits publics subjectifs dans la doctrine de la langue allemande”, Les droits publics subjectifs des administrés, Actes du Colloque organisé le 10 et 11 juin 2010 par l’AFDA, Collection Colloques & débats, LexisNexis, Paris, 2010, ss. 25-32.
• Keller M, “Intérêt à agir devant le juge allemand”, Intérêt à agir devant le juge administratif, (Ed. Olivier Renaudie), Berger-Levrault, Boulogne-Billlancourt, 2015, ss.69-78.
• Kent B, “Almanya’da İdari Yargı Teşkilatı”, C.15 S. 2, Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2007, ss. 185-214.
• Kraft I, “Das subjektive öffentliche Recht in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts”, S. 2023/2, 2023, Leipzig Law Journal, ss. 132-142.
• Kramer U / Hinrichsen T, “German Law of Administrative Court Procedure: an Overview”, Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences, 10 (2015, 8), ss. 2050-2061.
• Künnecke M, Tradition and Change in Administrative Law (An Anglo-German Comparison), Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, 2007.
• Laferriere É, Traité de la juridiction administrative et des recours contentieux, T. 2, Berger-Levrault, Paris, 1888.
• Loi fondamentale pour la République fédérale d’Allemagne, Bundestag allemand, Berlin, Nisan 2025. (https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80202000.pdf)
• Melleray F, Essai sur la structure du contentieux administratif français, L.G.D.J., Paris, 2001.
• Memiş E, “Alman İdari Yargı Hukukunda İptal ve Ödev Davalarını İrdeleme”, Prof. Dr. Ali Rıza Okur’a Armağan, C.: 20, S. 1, Beta Yayınevi, İstanbul, 2014, ss. 1051-1079.
• Morot C, Le tiers requérant et l’altération du recours pour excès de pouvoir en droit de l’urbanisme, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, L’Université Toulouse 1 Capitole, 2018.
• Onar S S, İdare Hukukunun Umumi Esasları, C.1, 3. Baskı, İsmail Akgün Matbaası, İstanbul, 1966.
• Perinçek D, “Federal Almanya İdari Yargısında İptal ve Ödev Davaları”, C. 22, S. 1,1966, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, ss. 165-214.
• Rainer A, “Pluralisme des garanties et des juges et droits fondamentaux - Allemagne”, Annuaire international de justice constitutionnelle, 29-2013, 2014, ss. 87-108.
• Ruffert M, “Les droits publics subjectifs dans l’Allemagne contemporaine”, Les droits publics subjectifs des administrés, Actes du Colloque organisé le 10 et 11 juin 2010 par l’AFDA, Collection Colloques & débats, LexisNexis, Paris, 2010, ss. 149-160.
• Sommermann K P, “Le système des actions et la protection d'urgence dans le contentieux administratif allemand”, vol. 11, no.6, 1995, Revue française de droit administratif, ss.1145-1171.
• Sönmez Y, “İptal Davasında Sübjektif Dava Ehliyeti: Menfaat İhlali Koşulu”, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Kamu Hukuku ABD, Ankara, 2023.
• Taveau A, “L’accès au juge national et international contre les actes du pouvoir exécutif”, Théorie et pratique sur des questions d’actualité-Rapport du colloque franco-allemand des 7 et 8 septembre 2018, in. Revue internationale de droit comparé, Vol. 71 N°2,2019, Études de droit contemporain, Contributions françaises au 20e Congrès international de droit comparé, Fukuoka, 22-28 juillet 2018, ss. 571-580.
• Tekinsoy M A, İdari Yargılama Hukukunda Yürütmenin Durdurulması, Savaş Yayınevi, Ankara, 2013.
• Teßmer D, Klagemöglichkeiten nach dem Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetz (UmwRG) 2017, Fachagentur Windenergie an Land, Berlin, 2017.
• Türkoğlu Üstün K, “Almanya’da İdari Yargının Tarihi Gelişimi”, Prof. Dr. Metin Günday Armağanı, Atılım Üniversitesi Yayınları No :65, Ankara, 2020, ss. 1443-1468.
• Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung / Loi sur la juridiction administrative, Fransızca’ya Çev. Christian Autexier, Anne Cathaly, Centre d'Etudes Juridiques Françaises, Universität Des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, 1995.
• Wang H, “Administrative Litigation Plaintiff Qualification in Germany: Enlightenment to Chinese Law”, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2020, Cross-Cultural Communication, Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture, ss. 102-112.
• Weidemann L, “Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Germany”, Judicial Review of Administration in Europe, (Eds. Giacinto della Cananea, Mads Andenas), Oxford University Press, 2021, ss. 53-58.
• Yıldız A Ç, “İmar Planlarında Kamusal Kullanıma Ayrılan Yerlerin Uzun Süre Kamulaştırılmaması Karşısında Alman Hukukundan Bir Çözüm Önerisi: Yükümlülük Davası”, C. 2, S. 2, 2020, Türk Alman Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, ss. 283-306.
• Yıldız A Ç, Alman İdari Yargılama Hukukuna Özgü Bir Dava Türü - Yükümlülük Davası, On İki Levha Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2021.
• Yılmaz D, “Alman idari yargılama hukukunda iptal davası”, C. XIII, Ankara, 2009, Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, ss. 303-320.