MEDENİ USUL HUKUKU AÇISINDAN ESKİ HÂLE GETİRME BAŞVURUSU ÜZERİNE VERİLEN KARAR
Öz
Hukuk yargılamasında taraflarca yapılan işlemler genel olarak sürelere tabi tutulmuştur. Bazı süreler kanunda açıkça düzenlenmişken, bazıları ise hâkimin takdirine bırakılmıştır. Taraflar bazen kendi iradeleri dışında ortaya çıkan sebeplere ilişkin olarak belirlenen süreleri kaçırabilmektedirler. Bu hâlde belirlenen sürenin belirli şartlarla, eski hâle getirme yolu ile canlandırılması mümkündür. Eski hâle getirme kurumu, yargılama hukukuna bağlı bazı hakları, kişinin kendi kusuru dışında süresinde kullanamaması hâlinde başvurulabilecek bir usul hukuku kurumudur. Çalışmamızda eski hâle getirme kurumu öncelikle 6100 sayılı Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu düzenlemeleri çerçevesinde ele alınmış, ancak 1086 sayılı Hukuk Usulü Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun eski hâle getirme kurumuna dair farklı düzenlemelerine ve doktrinde ve uygulamada ortaya çıkan farklı görüşlere yer verilmiş, eski ve yeni tarihli kaynaklar ile Yargıtay kararlarından yararlanılmıştır. Çalışmadaki amaç, eski hâle getirmeye ilişkin 6100 sayılı Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu hükümlerine (m. 95-101), yeri geldikçe 1086 sayılı Hukuk Usulü Muhakemeleri Kanun’un eski hâle getirme kurumuna dair farklılık gösteren düzenlemelerine de değinmek suretiyle ilgili Yargıtay kararları ışığında açıklık getirmektir. Bu sebeple, çalışmamızda öncelikle eski hâle getirme kurumunun amacı, hukuki niteliği, eski hâle getirmenin şartları, başvuru koşullarından bahsedilmekle eski hâle getirme başvurusu üzerine verilen kararlar incelenmiş ve ilgili kararların ortaya çıkardığı sonuçlar irdelenmiş, konuya dair Yargıtay kararları ele alınmıştır.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Decisions Taken on the Application for Restitution in Terms of Civil Procedure Law
Öz
The actions to be taken by the parties in civil proceeding are generally fixed on certain duration. While some of the periods are clearly regulated in the law, some periods are left to the discretion of the judge. The parties sometimes miss the specified periods depending on the reasons that arise out of their will. In this case, it is possible to revive the determined period by reinstatement under certain conditions. The institution of reinstatement is a procedure of adjective law that may be applied if a person cannot exercise some rights related to the judicial law for a period of time without his/ her own fault. In this study, the restitution concept is analyzed within the scope of Civil Procedure Law; the conditions of application to the procedures of restitution, the decisions of the related competent authority are explained.
The request for reinstatement is subject to certain conditions. Firstly, the deadline for filing a claim must be missed for unavoidable reasons. The acceptance of the request is committed to the discretion of the judge to be determined according to the circumstances of the concrete case. Moreover, in order to make a claim, the party must not have any legal remedy to make up for the missed time for the untimely action. Because, reinstatement can be applied as a last remedy. The request in question shall be made within two weeks from the removal of the obstacle from the court where the case is heard at the first instance stage, and from the relevant legal department that will hear the case at the legal remedy stages of appeal and cassation. Since the period is a forfeiture period, the court must take this period into consideration ex officio. In addition, reinstatement cannot be applied in cases where the deadlines regulated in the substantive law are missed. For example, if the statute of limitations or prescription period is missed, reinstatement cannot be requested. Reinstatement shall be requested with a petition showing the signs and evidences. In the petition, the requester shows the reasons for requesting reinstatement, the obstacles that cause the inability to take action in due time and the evidence related to them.
Upon a request for reinstatement, the court shall investigate the evidence and the reasons on which the request is based. The burden of proof is on the requesting party, and the party must prove the circumstances that need to be proved. The request for reinstatement of the party who cannot prove the reason for reinstatement and cannot fulfil the burden of proof shall be rejected. Since approximate proof is deemed sufficient in this regard, full proof is not required. The request for reinstatement before the courts of first instance or regional courts of appeal shall be made and examined in accordance with the procedure on preliminary issues, and the request for reinstatement before the Court of Cassation shall be made and examined in accordance with the appellate procedure. The judge hearing the request for reinstatement shall announce his/her decision on the rejection or acceptance of the request to the parties by way of notice or notification. It is not possible for the judge to continue the proceedings by leaving the request unanswered, and it is obligatory to make a decision on the request. The decision of the court must be clear, and no indirect or implied decision should be given.
If the court concludes that the formal conditions for the acceptance of the request for reinstatement are fulfilled and there is convincing evidence that the request is justified, and if it concludes that the transaction could not be made in a timely manner due to reasons other than the fault of the party requesting reinstatement, the court shall decide to accept the request, otherwise it shall decide to reject the request. The decision on the acceptance or rejection of the request for reinstatement during the pendency of the proceedings is an interim decision and is not final. However, unlike the decision on the rejection of the request, the decision on the acceptance of the request must be given as a separate decision. Because, unlike the rejection decision, the acceptance decision leads to a change in the existing legal situation. The decision to reject the request does not change the existing legal situation, and the case is continued as it is. With the decision to accept the request for reinstatement, the transaction made after the time shall be deemed to have been made on time, and the legal transactions and provisions affected by the deemed timeliness of the transaction shall be deemed invalid, since the adverse consequences arising as a result of missing the deadline shall be eliminated retroactively.
As a result, the institution of reinstatement contributes to the decision in accordance with the material truth at the end of the proceedings and prevents the loss of rights of the parties by complying with the conditions determined by the law.
Anahtar Kelimeler
