The Practicability of the Estoppel Hypothesis in the Turkish Administrative Law

Öz

The estoppel hypothesis which is the intersection set of the terms acquired rights, established situation, officer de facto and legitimate expectation, is a principle which results from the behavior of the administration and which forbids administrative disposals contrary to its past behavior. The compensation of the damages to a person, who having good faith in the behavior of the administration has changed his position, or while wanting to change his position has kept in his actual position due to a statement of the administration, is achieved by the estoppel. The application of the estoppel in the Turkish administrative law is unnecessary because of the following reasons:i. The expected legal protection by the estoppel is already achieved through other principles. ii. The estoppel makes the concept of public interest dysfunctional.iii. The estoppel causes the principles of private law entering the public law.iv. The acceptance of the estoppel in the administrative law can abolish the discretionary power of the administration and lead to ultra vires decisions.v. The application of the estoppel in the public law could lead to the inadequate internalization of the principle of protection of legitimate expectation.vi. It is not possible to provide the sound application of estoppel in the Turkish legal system where a separation of jurisdiction is applied

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Estoppel,acquired rights,established situation,legitimate expectation,rule of law,administrative law

TÜRK İDARE HUKUKUNDA ESTOPPEL KURAMININ UYGULANABİLİRLİĞİ

Öz

Kazanılmış hak, müesses durum, fiili memur ve haklı beklenti kavramlarının kesişim kümesi olan estoppel kuramı, idarenin davranışları sonucunda ortaya çıkan ve idarenin önceki davranışlarına aykırı bir tasarrufta bulunmasını yasaklayan bir ilkedir. Bir kamu idaresinin davranışına güvenen bireyin bulunduğu konumu değiştirmesi veya konumunu değiştirecek iken idarenin beyanı doğrultusunda aynı konumunu korumayı sürdürmesi sonucunda ortaya çıkan zararın tazmini estoppel ile sağlanır.Estoppelin Türk idare hukukunda tatbiki şu gerekçelerle gereksizdir:i. Estoppel ile beklenen hukuki koruma diğer yerleşmiş ilkelerle sağlanmaktadır. ii. Estoppel kamu yararı kavramını işlevsiz hale getirir.iii. Estoppel özel hukuk kaidelerinin kamu hukukuna girmesine sebep olur.iv. Estoppelin idare hukukunda kabulü, idarenin takdir yetkisini kaldırarak yetki aşımı yapılmasına sebebiyet verebilir.v. Estoppelin kamu hukukunda tatbiki, haklı beklentinin korunması ilkesinin gerektiği gibi özümsenememesine sebep olur. vi. Estoppelin yargı ayrılığı sisteminin uygulandığı Türk hukuk sisteminde sağlıklı uygulaması sağlanamaz

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Estoppel,kazanılmış haklar,müesses durum,haklı beklenti,hukuk devleti,idare hukuku

Kaynakça

1. ABBAS, Qaisar, “Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations: Prospects and Problems in Pakistan”, Pakistan Law Journal, 2008.
2. AHMED, Farrah - PERRY, Adam, “The Coherence of the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations”, The Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 73, Iss. 1, March 2014.
3. AKBULUT, Emre, Türk İdare Hukukunda Kanunî İdare İlkesi, İstanbul, 2013.
4. ALTINDAĞ, Halil, Yürürlükte Olan Yasalara ve İdari Düzenleyici İşlemlere Güvenden Kaynaklanan Haklı Beklenti Kavramı ve Korunması, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul, 2010.
5. BAMFORTH, Nicholas, “Legitimate Expectation and Estoppel”, Judicial Review, 1998.
6. BARAK - EREZ, Daphne, “The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations and the Distinction Between the Reliance and Expectation Interests”, European Public Law, Vol. 1, Iss. 4.
7. BEREKET, Zuhal, Hukukun Genel İlkeleri ve Danıştay, Ankara, 1996.
8. BLUNDELL, David, “Ultra Vires Legitimate Expectations”, Judicial Review, 2005.

9. BOZ, Selman Sacit, İdare Hukukunda Haklı Beklentinin Korunması, Ankara, 2017.
10. BROWN, Alexander, “Justifying Compensation For Frustrated Legitimate Expectations”, Law and Philosophy Review, Vol. 30, No. 6, November 2011.
11. CALMES-BRUNET, Sylvia, “Rechtssicherheit und Vertrauensschutz im Verwaltungsrecht Ein Vergleich Zwischen Deutschem und Französischem Recht”, Juristische Schulung, 2014 (12).
12. CAMPBELL, John, “Legitimate Expectations: Developments at Home and Abroad”, The South African Law Journal, Vol. 121, 2004.
13. CARTWRIGHT, John, “Protecting Legitimate Expectations and Estoppel in English Law”, (Report to the XVIIth International Congress of Comparative Law, July 2006), Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 10(3), December 2006.
14. COOKE, Elizabeth, The Modern Law of Estoppel, Oxford, 2000.
15. CRAIG, Paul, “Legitimate Expectations: A Conceptual Analysis”, LQR., 108 (Jan), 1992.
16. CRAIG, Paul, Administrative Law, Fourth Edition, London, 1999.
17. ELLIOTT, Mark, “Legitimate Expectation, Consistency and Abuse of Power: the Rashid Case”, Judicial Review, 2005.
18. FELIX, Shivaji, “The Protection of Substantive Legitimate Expectations in Administrative Law”, Sri Lanka Journal of International Law, Vol. 18, 2006.
19. FLANAGAN, Richard, “Legitimate Expectation and Applications-An Outdated and Unneeded Distinction”, Canterbury Law Review, Vol. 17, Iss. 2, 2011.
20. FORSYTH, C.F., “Legitimate Expectations Revisited”, Judicial Review, 2011.
21. FORSYTH, C.F., “The Provenance and Protection of Legitimate Expectations”, Cambridge Law Journal, 47(2), July, 1988.
22. FREEDMAN, Judith - VELLA, John, “HMRC’s Management of the U.K. Tax System: The Boundaries of Legitimate Discretion”, Legal Research Paper Series, No. 73, November 2012.
23. GÖKYURT, Fatih, İdare Hukukunda Kazanılmış Hak ve Müesses Durum, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul, 2007.
24. GROVES, Matthew, “Substantive Legitimate Expectations in Australian Administrative Law”, Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 32, 2008.
25. HODGSON, D. C., “The Current Status of the Legitimate Expectation in Administrative Law”, Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 14, December 1984.
26. IKHARIALE, M. A., “The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations: Prospects and Problems in Constitutional Litigation in South Africa”, Journal of African Law, Vol. 45, No. 1, 2001.
27. IYENGAR, Harini, “Legitimate Expectation: Promises by a Different Public Authority”, Judicial Review, 2003.
28. JAYASINGHE, Chaminda, “Making Sense of the Concept of Substantive Legitimate Expectation”, School of Humanities, Peace Studies Department, UNE, Australia, 2010.
29. JOHNSON, Graeme, “Natural Justice and Legitimate Expectations in Australia”, Federal Law Review, Vol. 15, 1985.
30. KNIGHT, Dean R., Estoppel (principles?) in Public Law: The Substantive Protection of Legitimate Expectations, Master of Law, The University of British Columbia, Canada, 2004.
31. LEWIS, Clive, “Fairness, Legitimate Expectations and Estoppel”, The Modern Law Review, Vol. 49, No. 2, March 1986.
32. LEYLAND, Peter - ANTHONY, Gordon, Textbook on Administrative Law, 8th Edition, United Kingdom, 2016.
33. LI, Andrew S. Y. - LEUNG, Hester Wai-San, “The Doctrine of Substantive Legitimate Expectation: The Significance of Ng Siu Tung and Others v. Director of Immigration”, Hong Kong Law Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3, 2003.
34. MACPHERSON, Paula A., Legitimate Expectation and Its Application to Administrative Policy, LL.M Degree in Law, University of Ottawa, Canada, 1995.
35. MARTIN, Elizabeth, Dictionary of Law, Fifth Edition, Oxford, 2002.
36. McGILVRAY, Stuart Angus, “Making Sense of Substantive Legitimate Expectations in New Zealand Administrative Law”, University of Otago, Dunedin-New Zealand, 2007.
37. MOFFETT, Jonathan, “Resiling From Legitimate Expectations”, Judicial Review, 2008.
38. MUZAFAR, Seemeen, “Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation in India: An Analysis”, International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2013.
39. OĞURLU, Yücel, İdare Hukukunda Kazanılmış Haklara Saygı ve Haklı Beklentiler Sorunu, Ankara, 2003.
40. ÖRÜCÜ, Esin, “Avrupa Hukukunda İdare Hukukunun Genel İlkeleri”, İdare Hukuku ve İlimleri Dergisi, S. 1-3, 1988.
41. ÖZCAN, Nur, Avrupa Toplulukları Adalet Divanı Kararları Işığında Haklı Beklenti İlkesi, Galatasaray Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul, 2011.
42. PANDYA, Abhijit PG. - MOODY, Andy, “Legitimate Expectations in Investment Treaty Arbitration: An Unclear Future”, Tilburg Law Review, Vol. 15, Iss. 1, 2010.
43. PANDYA, Abhijit PG., “Legitimate Expectations in English Law: Too Deferential an Approach?”, Judicial Review, 2009.
44. PATERSON, Moira, “Legitimate Expectations and Fairness: New Directions In Australian Law”, Monash University Law Review, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1992.
45. PIEVSKY, David, “Legitimate Expectation as a Relevancy”, Judicial Review, Vol. 8(3), 2003.
46. POOLE, Melissa, “Legitimate Expectation and Substantive Fairness: Beyond the Limits of Procedural Propriety”, New Zealand Law Review, 1995.
47. REID, Elspeth, “Protecting Legitimate Expectations and Estoppel in Scots Law”, Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 10(3), December 2006.
48. ROBERTSON, John C., “Legitimate Expectations”, SA Publiekreg/Public Law, Vol. 6, Iss. 2, 1991.
49. SALES, Philip - STEYN, Karen, “Legitimate Expectations in English Law: An Analysis”, Public Law, 2004.
50. SCHØNBERG, Søren J., Legitimate Expectations in Administrative Law, New York, 2000.
51. SEVER, D. Çiğdem, Danıştay Kararları Işığında İdare Hukukunda Kazanılmış Haklar, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara, 2006.
52. SNODGRASS, Elizabeth, “Protecting Investors’ Legitimate Expectations: Recognizing and Delimiting a General Principle”, ICSID Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal, 2004.
53. TALAAT, Wan Izatul Asma Wan, “The Threats to The Limitations Outlining The Present Parameters of Promissory Estoppel: A Comparative Study”, The Special Issue on Contemporary Research in Business and Economics, Vol. 3, No. 6, [Special Issue-March 2012].
54. TALAGALA, Chamila S., “The Scope of the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation as a Ground of Judicial Review of Administrayive Action”, Bar Association Law Journal, Vol. XV, 2009.
55. TAY KUAN SENG, Charles, “Substantive Legitimate Expectations-The Singapore Reception”, Singapore Academy of Law Journal, Vol. 26, 2014.
56. THOMAS, Robert, The Relationship Between English and European Community Administrative Law: The Principles of Legitimate Expectations and Proportionality, PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham, 1998.
57. THOMAS, Robert, Legitimate Expectations and Proportionality in Administrative Law, Oxford Portland Oregon, 2000.
58. WEISBROT, Marcin, “Application of the Principle of Protection of Legitimate Expectations in Recovery of Unduly Paid Subsidies in the Context of Judicial Coherence in the European Union”, Review of European Administrative Law, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2015.
59. YOST, Chris, “A Case Review and Analysis of the Legitimate Expectations Principle as it Applies within the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard”, Honours Thesis, The Australian National University, Australian, 2008.