Hukuk Fakültesi
https://hdl.handle.net/11655/10
Faculty of Law2024-03-28T15:12:18Zİşçinin Politik Görüş ve Faaliyetlerinin İş İlişkisine Etkisi
https://hdl.handle.net/11655/34833
İşçinin Politik Görüş ve Faaliyetlerinin İş İlişkisine Etkisi
Ayan, Hasan Alparslan
Employee's political activities are behaviors aimed at influencing the decisions of the political authorities. Within this definition, the political activities of the employee take place within the framework of political views and activities. In accordance with the horizontal effect of fundamental rights and freedoms, freedom of political activity affects the employment relationship. This effect of political activities should be addressed in terms of the basic concepts of the employment contract such as employee, employer and workplace.
It is necessary to identify the scope of the employer’s intervention in the investigation of political views. The collection of information by the employee should be evaluated within the framework of questions, tests, internet, artificial intelligence and security investigations. Firstly, the individual political activities of the employee may be realized through the use of communication tools for private purposes. Secondly, statements of political views should be disclosed in the workplace and outside the workplace (in private life). Furthermore, the consequences of a conflict of conscience in relation to political beliefs in the employment relationship should be clarified. Finally, the collective political activities of the employee should be examined, especially within the framework of the right to collective action.
The consequences of the political activities of the employee in terms of termination of the employment contract should be investigated in terms of the right of termination of the employer and the employee. Although, as a rule, political views cannot be accepted as a reason for termination, exceptional circumstances regarding termination can be addressed in terms of employees who are and are not covered by employment protection.
2024-01-01T00:00:00ZBölge İdare Mahkemelerinin Kesin Nitelikteki Kararları Arasında Aykırılığın Giderilmesi
https://hdl.handle.net/11655/34831
Bölge İdare Mahkemelerinin Kesin Nitelikteki Kararları Arasında Aykırılığın Giderilmesi
Çökelek, Mehmet
Since the beginning of the appellate procedure in the Turkish administrative judiciary on July 20, 2016, certain first-instance court decisions have become final at the appellate stage, thus bypassing any cassation review. This situation gives rise to contradictions in the decisions of the regional administrative courts, which are located in nine different regions of Turkey and serve different judicial districts. Consequently, the same legal rule may be applied inconsistently, leading to the emergence of conflicting decisions. It is a recognized fact that the existence of such conflicting decisions violates the principles of legal certainty and predictability and undermines public confidence in the judiciary. Due to these contradictory decisions, the principle of the rule of law and thereby the society as a whole will suffer.
In this context, the procedure for resolving discrepancies between definitive decisions given by chambers of regional administrative courts in similar cases was legislated with the introduction of Article 3/C of Law No. 2576 in 2016. Initially, the task of resolving these discrepancies was assigned to the Council of State's Unification of Jurisprudence Committee. However, after three years of experience during which only one decision on the procedure for discrepancy resolution was issued, the legislative amendment to Article 3/C of Law No. 2576 in 2019 transferred this duty to the Administrative or Tax Chambers Council of the Council of State. Furthermore, this amendment mandated that the councils issue decisions within three months, creating a more dynamic structure.
Especially after the year 2020, with its new structure, the path to resolving discrepancies has begun to take shape. Given that this institution is very new, the necessity has been felt to elucidate its debated and deficient aspects, to set out the conditions of the institution, and the legal status of the decisions within a certain systematic framework. This study aims to determine whether the discrepancy resolution process is an effective means, whether the degree courts comply with the discrepancy resolution decisions, and whether the current interests of the parties in whose favor the discrepancy resolution decisions are made have been addressed.
2024-01-01T00:00:00ZİŞ YARGILAMASINDA TANIK DELİLİ
https://hdl.handle.net/11655/34827
İŞ YARGILAMASINDA TANIK DELİLİ
TEKER, BÜNYAMİN
A witness is a person who conveys to the court the information he has about events and facts that are in dispute between the parties in a case. Witness evidence, which is discretionary evidence in civil procedural law, appears as the most important means of proof in labor law trials on issues such as working hours and conditions, wages paid to workers, and the reason for termination of the contract. While it is possible to prove with witness evidence on issues such as the existence and type of the employment contract, the material facts that serve as a basis for termination of the contract, overtime working time, the wage received by the employee during the working period, the justifiable reasons for termination, it is also possible to prove that the employer pays the employee wages, provides annual leave, changes in working conditions with the consent of the employee. In some cases, proof can only be made with written evidence. Although there are no clear regulations in the Labor Law No. 4857 regarding the circumstances in which witness evidence can be used in labor proceedings, it is concluded that witness evidence is used as a means of proof in a wider range of cases in labor proceedings than those envisaged in the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100. Since there are not enough regulations in the law regarding the burden of proof and tools in labor proceedings, an attempt is made to find a solution to these issues through judicial precedents. Although the Supreme Court has mostly stable jurisprudence regarding the circumstances in which witness evidence can be used, it is also seen that decisions have changed over time on some issues.
2024-01-01T00:00:00ZCeza Muhakemesinde Soruşturma Evresinde Savunma
https://hdl.handle.net/11655/34803
Ceza Muhakemesinde Soruşturma Evresinde Savunma
Kandur, İlayda
The collaborative engagement of the prosecution, defense, and adjudicatory authorities is paramount in the criminal procedural process to ascertain the material truth. Safeguarding the rights of the suspect/defendant is imperative throughout this process. The criminal procedural activity commences with the investigatory stage. Upon the initiation of criminal procedural measures against the suspect, the right to defense of the suspect is activated. However, for the suspect to effectively exercise this right, they must be duly informed of the accusations against them.
The suspect may opt to personally exercise their right to defense or benefit from the legal assistance of defense counsel. Should the suspect avail themselves of defense counsel assistance, it is referred to as the suspect's collective defense. The execution of collective defense does not preclude individual defense but rather complements the suspect's individual defense. In certain instances delineated in the Criminal Procedure Code, it is obligatory for the suspect to benefit from defense counsel assistance.
Instances of violations of the right to defense, stemming at times from legislative regulations and at other times from unlawful practices, are observed in the utilization of the suspect's right to defense. This study scrutinizes prevalent violations of the right to defense in practice, endeavors to elucidate contentious issues, and proffers some prospective solutions.
2024-03-01T00:00:00Z