Hakimin Tarafsızlığının Sosyal Medya Ortamında Korunması Sorunu

Yıl 2014, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 3, 641 - 668, 01.07.2014

Mahmut Şen

Öz

Hakimin tarafsız olması, demokratik bir toplumda en önemli hukuk kaidelerinden biridir. Adil yargılanma hakkı ilkesi, hakimin tarafsız ve bağımsız olmasını gerektirir. Evrensel yargı etiği ilkelerine göre ise, yargının sadece tarafsız ve bağımsız olması yeterli olmayıp, aynı zamanda kamuoyu tarafından bu şekilde algılanmalıdır. Kamuoyunun hukukun üstünlüğüne ve yargının düzenli olarak işleyişine olan güvenini korumak hakimin kişisel sorumluluğu olduğundan, hakim hem meslek, hem de özel hayatında tarafsızlık, bağımsızlık ve dürüstlük ilkelerine uygun davranmalıdır.Öte yandan, sosyal medya kullanımı, yargı mensuplarına bilgi ve deneyimlerini meslektaşları ile paylaşma imkanı sağlamakla birlikte, kamuoyunun yargının tarafsızlığına olan algısını olumsuz yönde etkileyebilmektedir. Bu nedenle, sosyal medya ortamındaki tutum ve davranışları ile hakimlerin, bakmakta oldukları davalarda tarafsız kalamayacakları algısına neden olmamaları gerektiği kabul edilmektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yargının Tarafsızlığı ve Tarafsızlık Algısı, Hakimlerin Sosyal Medya Kullanımı, Bangalor Yargı Etiği İlkeleri, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi.

THE QUESTION OF THE PROTECTION OF IMPARTIALITY OF JUDGES IN SOCIAL MEDIA NETWORK

Öz

The impartiality of judge is one of the core principles in a democratic society. Right to a fair trial is required that judge must be independent and impartial. However, according to universal standarts of judicial conduct, justice should not only be done but be seen to be done. Therefore, the appearance of impartiality is crucial in a judicial proceeding as well. It is accepted that judge is responsiple for upholding the rule of law and the proper administration of justice. In order to ensure these core duties to be done, judge should act with integrity, independence and impartiality in both professional and private life. On the other hand, although online social networking provides real opportunities for the legal profession with sharing legal knowledge and expertise with colleague, it has also some potential that the appearance of impartiality of judge to be compromised. Therefore, it is accepted that judges should be encouraged to consider their social media use to avoid any target allegations of miscarriage of justice or lack of impartiality.

Anahtar Kelimeler

The Impartiality of Judiciary and Appearance of Impartiality, Online Social Networking of Judges, Bangalor Principles of Judicial Conduct, European Court of Human Rights.

Kaynakça

• Abramson, Leslie W., Appearence of Impropriety:Deciding When A Judge’s Impartiality Reasonably Be Questioned, Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics,vol. 14,2001.
• Astle, Ruth S., Integrity and Ethics in Western Adjudicatory Systems : Toward a Standard, (2008). Theses and Dissertations. Paper 14. http:// digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/theses/14, erişim tarihi: 02.05.2014
• Brownıng,John G., Why Can’t We Be Friends?Judges’ Use of Social Media, Unıversıty of Mıamı Law Review,vol.68, 2014.
• Devlin, Richard F., (Re)Constructing Judicial Ethics in Canada, http:// papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2083137 , erişim tarihi: 15.04.2013
• De Villiers, Meiring,The Impartiality Doctrine:Constitutional Meaning and Judicial Impact, Amerıcan Journal of Trial Advocacy,vol.34, 2010.
• Eltis, Karen, Does Avoiding Judicial Isolation Outweigh the Risks Related to “Professional Death by Facebook”? www.mdpi.com/journal/laws/, erişim tarihi: 19.12.2014
• Fried, Charles A mediation on the First Principles of Judicial Ethics, Hostra Law Review, vol. 32, 2004
• Geyh, Charles Gardner, The Dimensıons Of Judicial Impartiality , Indiana Unıversity Maurer School Of Law-Bloomington Legal Studies Research Paper Series No:201, 2012, S.4.
• Goldszlagier, Julien, Hugues Julie, Lardet Florence , The Ethıcal Challenges Of Internet Use By Judges, http://www.ejtn.eu/Documents/Themis%20 2012/THEMIS%202012%20ERFURT%20DOCUMENT/Written%20 paper%20France%204.pdf, erişim tarihi: 19. 12.2014
• Gönenç,Levent, Yargının Bağımsızlığı ve Tarafsızlığı, TEPAV Anayasa Çalışma Metinleri, 2011.
• İnceoğlu, Sibel, Adil Yargılanma Hakkı ve Yargı Etiği,Ankara, 2007.
• Janoski-Haehlen, Emily M. The Courts Are All A ‘Twitter’: The Implications of Social Media Use in the Courts, 46 Val. U. L. Rev. 43, 2011.
• Lackey, Michael E. Jr., Minta, Joseph P. (2012) “Lawyers and Social Media:The Legal Ethics of Tweeting, Facebooking and Blogging,” Touro Law Review: Vol. 28: No. 1, Article 7.
• Nathanael, J. Mitchell, Judge 2.0: A New Approach to Judıcıal Ethics In The Age Of Social Media, Utah Law Revıew,2012.
• Reitz, John C. Politics, Executive Dominance, and Transformative Law in the Culture of Judicial Independence, University of St. Thomas Law Journal, 2008.
• Salbu, Steven R., “Law and Conformity, Ethics and Confl ict: The Trouble with Law-Based Conceptions of Ethics,” Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 68: Iss. 1, Article 3,1992.
• Strawn, Benjamin B., Do Judicial Ethics Canons Affect Perceptions of Judicial Impartiality?, Boston University Law Review, Vol. 88, 2008.
• Simon, Stephen M., Landsman, Maury S., Judicial Ethics Simulation Based Training, 58 Law and Contemporary Problems, 1995. http:// scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol58/iss3/24
• Wilson, Aurora J., Let’s Be Cautıous Frıends: The Ethıcal Implıcatıons of Socıal Networkıng For Members of The Judıcıary , Washıngton Journal of Law, Technology & Arts Volume 7, Issue 3, 2012, http://digital.law. washington.edu/dspace-law/handle/1773.1/1112.
• Estlinbaum, Craig, Social Networking and Judicial Ethics, St. Mary’s Journal on Legal Malpractıce & Ethıcs, Vol. 2:2, 2012.
• Summers, John S., Smith, Maureen P., Judges and Online Social Networking, BNA Insights, Vol. 12, No. 22 (June 3, 2013).
• Şen, Mahmut, İdeal Hakim Arayışı ve Yargı Etiği, Adalet Akademesi Dergisi,Temmuz 2013.
• Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin 15 Ekim 2009 tarihli Mıcallef/Malta kararı, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int, erişim tarihi:15.04.2014
• Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin 24 Şubat 1993 tarihli Fey/Avusturya kararı, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int, erişim tarihi:30.04.2014
• Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin De Cubber kararı, http://hudoc.echr. coe.int erişim tarihi: 02.05.2014
• Calıfornıa Judges Assocıatıon Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion 66 Online Socıal Networking, http://www.caljudges.org/files/pdf/Opinion%20 66FinalShort.pdf
• erişim tarihi:04.04.2014
• Commentary on the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Counduct, http://www. unodc.org/documents/corruption/publications_unodc_commentary-e. pdf, erişim tarihi: 16.04.2014
• http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_ responsibility/formal_opinion_462.authcheckdam.pdfhttp://www. americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_ responsibility/formal_opinion_462.authcheckdam., erişim tarihi: 26.04.2014
• http://www.staugustinecriminallawyer.com/blog/judges-and-social-mediaare-you-receiving-a-fair-trial/, erişim tarihi:22.04.2014
• Ohio Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline Openion. 2010-7, http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Boards/BOC/Advisory_Opinions/2010
• erişim tarihi: 20.04.2014
• Opinion no. 3 of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) on the principles and rules governing judges’ professional conduct, in particular ethics, incompatible behaviour and impartiality,paragraf 27, 28, https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CCJE(2002)OP3, erişim tarihi:06.05.2013
• Public Reprimand of B. Carlton Terry, N.C. Judicial Standards Comm., Inquiry No. 08-234 (2009), http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/ public/ coa/jsc/publicreprimands/jsc08-234.pdf.
• The Impact of Online Social Networking on the Legal Profession and Practice, An initiative of the Legal Projects Team,February 2012,www.ibanet. org, erişim tarihi: 25.04.2014
• http://www.radikal.com.tr/politika/tahliye_eden_hakimin_begenisi_1179056, erişim tarihi: 19.12.2014
• http://www.mynet.com/haber/guncel/-kimseyi-hedefgostermedim-1602087-1, erişim tarihi: 19.12.2014
• http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/tutanak/donem24/yil4/ham/b07101h.htm, erişim tarihi: 19.12.2014
• http://www.legalcheek.com/2012/08/judges-threatened-with-disciplinary-action-for-blogging-about-their-day-job-even-if-they-do-soanonymously/, erişim tarihi: 19.12.2014
• http://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/aug/14/judiciary-banned-bloggingtweeting, erişim tarihi: 19.12.2014
• http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp- content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Guidance/ judicial_conduct_2013.pdf, erişim tarihi: 19.12.2014