Birleşik Krallık idare hukukunda ultra vires

Öz

Dicey’nin Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution adlı eserinin yayınlanmasından beri, Birleşik Krallık’ta idarenin yargısal denetiminin anayasal temelinin parlamento egemenliği ilkesi ve ultra vires olduğu kabul edilmektedir. Yazar tarafından sistematik hâle getirilmiş geleneksel ultra vires doktrini çerçevesinde mahkemelerin görevi idarenin yasa koyucu tarafından verilmiş yetkileri aşıp aşmadığını denetlemektir. Bununla birlikte, Birleşik Krallık idare hukukunu geliştiren ilkelerin gerçekte Parlamento tarafından değil mahkemeler tarafından geliştirildiği bilinmektedir. Mahkemeler bunu çoğu zaman ultra viresin kapsamını genişleterek, bazen de onu aşarak yapmaktadırlar. Dokrinde bazı yazarlar bu gelişmeyi uyarlanmış ultra vires, bazılarıysa common law yaklaşımıyla açıklamaya çalışmaktadırlar. Bu makalede, özellikle Birleşik Krallık idare hukukunun gelişiminde önemli bir etkisi olan mahkeme kararları incelenmektedir. Makalede, geleneksel ve uyarlanmış ultra vires yaklaşımları yanında common law yaklaşımı da açıklanmakta ve Birleşik Krallık’ta bugün var olan gelişmiş idare hukuku sisteminin diğer ülkeler açısından da örnek teşkil edebilecek bir noktaya ulaştığı sonucuna varılmaktadır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İdari yargı, idare hukuku, takdir yetkisi, ultra vires (yetki aşımı), parlamento egemenliği, geleneksel ultra vires yaklaşımı, uyarlanmış ultra vires yaklaşımı, common law yaklaşımı, yokluk

Ultra Vires in the Administrative Law of the United Kingdom

Öz

Since Dicey’s Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, it is accepted that the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and ultra vires are the basis of judicial review in the United Kingdom. According to these principles, the main role of the courts during judicial review is to police the boundaries stipulated by the Parliament. So one can expect that the main principles of judicial review can be found in the primary legislation. But it is known that especially since 1960s, the basic principles of administrative law and judicial review are not created by the the Parliament. In reality, they are creations of the courts. The courts usually create these principles by enlarging the ultra vires doctrine but whenever needed, they do not hesitate even to go beyond it. Some writers try to explain this development by modifying the ultra vires doctrine. But according to others, even the modified ultra vires doctrine is not able to explain this development and it is the time to accept that the basis of judicial review is common law in reality. This article mainly focuses on the decisions of the courts which made it possible to talk about a developed administrative law system in the United Kingdom. The traditional and modified ultra vires and common law doctrines are explained and it is argued that the developed administrative law system of the United Kingdom is now a serious example for the courts in other countries

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Judicial review, administrative law, discretionary powers, ultra vires, parliamentary sovereignty, traditional ultra vires doctrine, modified ultra vires doctrine, common law doctrine, nullity

Kaynakça

1. A. Genel Eserler ve Makaleler
2. ALLAN, T.R.S. (2000). “The Rule of Law as the Foundation of Judicial Review”, Judicial Review and the Constitution, ed. Christopher Forsyth, USA: Oxford-Portland Oregon, s. 413-419.
3. CRAIG, Paul. (2008). Administrative Law, (6. bs.), London: Sweet & Maxwell.
4. CRAIG, Paul. (2000a). “Competing Models of Judicial Review”, Judicial Review and the Constitution, ed. Christopher Forsyth, USA: Oxford- Portland Oregon, s. 373-392.
5. CRAIG, Paul. (2000b). “Ultra Vires and the Foundations of Judicial Review”, Judicial Review and the Constitution, ed. Christopher Forsyth, USA: Oxford-Portland Oregon, s. 47-71.
6. DICEY, A.V. (1959). An Introduction to the Law of the Constitution, (10. bs.), London: Macmillan.
7. DICEY, A.V. (1915). “The Development of Administrative Law in England”, The Law Quarterly Review, 31(2), s. 148-153.
8. ELLIOTT, Mark. (2000a). “Fundamental Rights as Interpretative Constructs: The Constitutional Logic of the Human Rights Act 1998”, Judicial Review and the Constitution, ed. Christopher Forsyth, USA: Oxford-Portland Oregon, s. 269-288.

9. ELLIOTT, Mark. (2000b). “The Ultra Vires Doctrine in a Constitutional Setting: Still the Central Principle of Administrative Law”, Judicial Review and the Constitution, ed. Christopher Forsyth, USA: Oxford- Portland Oregon, s. 83-109.
10. ERHÜRMAN, Tufan. (2012). Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti İdari Yargılama Hukuku -Türk ve İngiliz Hukuk Sistemleriyle Karşılaştırmalı Bir İnceleme-, Lefkoşa: Işık Kitabevi Yayınları.
11. FORSYTH, Christopher. (1986). “Haklı Beklentilerin Doğuşu ve Korunması”, çev. Esin Örücü, İdare Hukuku ve İlimleri Dergisi, 7(1- 3), s. 121-139.
12. FORSYTH, Christopher. (2000a). “Heat and Light: A Plea for Reconciliation”, Judicial Review and the Constitution, ed. Christopher Forsyth, USA: Oxford-Portland Oregon, s. 393-409.
13. FORSYTH, Christopher. (2000b). “Of Fig Leaves and Fairy Tales: The Ultra Vires Doctrine, the Sovereignty of Parliament and Judicial Review”, Judicial Review and the Constitution, ed. Christopher Forsyth, USA: Oxford-Portland Oregon, s. 29-46.
14. KARAMUSTAFAOĞLU, Tuncer. (1964). “İngiliz İdare Hukuku ve Ultra Vires Doktrini”, Ord. Prof. Dr. Ernst E. Hirsch’e Armağan, Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk FakültesiYayınları, s. 45-73.
15. LAWS, Sir John. (2000a). “An Extract from: Illegality: The Problem of Jurisdiction”, Judicial Review and the Constitution, ed. Christopher Forsyth, USA: Oxford-Portland Oregon, s. 73-81.
16. LAWS, Sir John. (1995). “Democracy and Law”, Public Law, 72, s. 72-93.
17. LAWS, Sir John. (2000b). “Judicial Review and the Meaning of Law”, Judicial Review and the Constitution, ed. Christopher Forsyth, USA: Oxford-Portland Oregon, s. 173-190.
18. MUMCU, Uğur. (1970). “İngiliz Hukukunda Ultra Vires Kavramı”, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 27 (1-2), s. 37-66.
19. OLIVER, Dawn. (2000). “Is the Ultra Vires Rule the Basis of Judicial Review?”, Judicial Review and the Constitution, ed. Christopher Forsyth, USA: Oxford-Portland Oregon, s. 3-27.
20. WADE, H.W.R. & FORSYTH, C. F. (2009). Administrative Law, (10. bs.), New York: Oxford University Press.
21. WOOLF, Lord Justice. (1995). “Droit Public - English Style”, Public Law, 72, s. 57-71.
22. WOOLF, Lord Justice. (1986). “The Role of the English Judiciary in Developing Public Law”, William and Mary Law Review, 27(4), s. 669-683.
23. ZABUNOĞLU, Yahya K. (1961). “İngiltere’de İdare Hukuku Anlayışı”, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(1-4), s. 373-411.
24. Anisminic Kararı: House of Lords’un, 17.12.1968 tarihli, Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission and Another kararı, [1968] UKHL 6, [1969] 2 AC 147 sayılı, www.bailii.org/uk/cases/ukhl/ 1968/6.html, erişim tarihi: 29.4.2012.
25. Boddington Kararı: House of Lords’un, 2.4.1998 tarihli, [1998] UKHL 13, [1999] 2 AC 143 sayılı Boddington v British Transport Police kararı, http://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/files/live/litigation/339/GB_Bod dington%20v.%20British%20Transpor.pdf, erişim tarihi: 12.4.2012.
26. Council of Civil Service Unions Kararı: House of Lords’un, 22.11.1984 tarihli, [1983] UKHL 6, [1985] AC 374 sayılı, Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for Civil Service kararı, http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1983/6.html, erişim tarihi: 10.4.2012.
27. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Lain Kararı: Queen’s Bench’in, [1967] 2 QB 864 sayılı, Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Lain kararı, http://www.google.com.tr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web &cd=3&ved=0CDcQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Foxcheps.new.ox. ac.uk%2Fnew%2Fcasebook%2Fcases%2FCases%2520Chapter%25 2013%2FR%2520v%2520Criminal%2520Injuries%2520Compensat ion%2520Board%2C%2520ex%2520p%2520Latin.doc&ei=rziET- S0Bc3DtAbDgt3cBg&usg=AFQjCNEbKPifqudvRs-hL47v5E0-Sdd Pxw&sig2=OYJ_C4zoPVZPS897A8rsbA, erişim tarihi: 10.4.2012.
28. Gillick Kararı: House of Lords’un, 17.10.1985 tarihli, [1985] UKHL 7, [1986] AC 112 sayılı, Gillick (A.P.) (Respondent) v. West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and the Department of Health and Social Security (Appellants) kararı, http://www.bailii.org/uk/ cases/UKHL/1985/7.html, erişim tarihi: 5.4.2012.
29. Inland Revenue Commissioners Kararı: House of Lords’un, 9.4.1981 tarihli, [1981] UKHL 2, [1982] AC 617 sayılı, R v. Inland Revenue Commissioners ex p. National Federation of Self Employed and Small Business Ltd kararı, http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/ 1981/2.html, erişim tarihi: 3.4.2012.
30. Jackson & Others Kararı: House of Lords’un, 13.10.2005 tarihli, [2005] UKHL 56, [2006] 1 AC 262 sayılı, Jackson & Others v. Her Majesty’s Attorney General kararı, http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/ UKHL/2005/56.html, erişim tarihi: 18.4.2012
31. Padfield Kararı: House of Lords’un, 14.2.1968 tarihli, [1968] UKHL 1, [1968] AC 997 sayılı, R. v. Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries ex. p. Padfield kararı, http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1968/ 1.html, erişim tarihi: 22.4.2012.
32. Page Kararı: House of Lords’un, 3.12.1992 tarihli, [1992] UKHL 12, [1993] AC 682 sayılı, R. v. Lord President of the Privy Council ex parte Page kararı, http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1992/12.html, erişim tarihi: 19.4.2012.
33. Panel on Take-overs and Mergers ex parte Datafin Kararı: Queen’s Bench’in, [1987] QB 815 sayılı, R v. Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin plc and Another (Norton Opax plc and Another Intervening) kararı, http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/casebook/ Resources/RVPANE_1%20DOC.pdf, erişim tarihi: 12.4.2012.
34. Ridge v. Baldwin Kararı: House of Lords’un, 14.3.1963 tarihli, [1963] UKHL 2, [1964] AC 40 sayılı, Ridge v. Baldwin kararı, http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1963/2.html, erişim tarihi: 2.4.2012.
35. Royal College of Nursing Kararı: House of Lords’un, 5.2.1981 tarihli, [1980] UKHL 10, [1981] AC 800 sayılı, Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom v Department of Health and Social Security kararı, http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1980/10.html, erişim tarihi: 11.4.2012.
36. Wednesbury Kararı: King’s Bench’in, 10.11.1947 tarihli, [1947] EWCA Civ 1 sayılı, Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation kararı, http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1947/ 1.html, erişim tarihi: 3.4.2012.