İDARİ YARGILAMA HUKUKUNDA DAVA AÇMANIN SONUÇLARI

As in civil procedure law, the administrative jurisdiction law has a number of consequences in terms of both substantive and procedural law. Although the results of the filing an action have similarities in civil procedure law and administrative jurisdiction law, there are some important differences. For example, Article 154/2 of the Turkish Code of Obligations states that the filing an action is one of the reasons that interrupt of the prescription. It can be discussed whether this rule will be applied in administrative jurisdiction law. In our opinion, this rule is not applicable in administrative jurisdiction. Because the term of litigation in administrative jurisdiction is not about material law but about judicial law. In addition, the term of litigation in administrative jurisdiction is deemed to be latest term. Likewise, it can also be discussed whether a default will arise as a result of the filing an action. Because the legal responsibility of the administration mainly arises from non-contractual reasons, ie administrative act and actions. The Turkish Code of Obligations did not need any conditions for the default of the debtor in debts arising from non-contractual relations. As a matter of fact, Article 117 of the Law states that “In wrongful act, the debtor shall be in default at the date of the act. In unjust enrichment, the debtor shall be in default at the date of enrichment.” If these provisions of the Code of Obligations are followed, also in full-remedy actions, no warning is required for the administration to default and no such result can be attributed to the filing an action. It is also possible to discuss whether the “prohibition to withdraw the case” rule, which is one of the consequences of the proceedings in civil procedure law, is feasible and necessary in administrative cases.