|
ÖZET Türk hukukuna 1971 'de yapılan anayasa değişiklikleriyle giren kanun hükmünde kararnameler yürütme organının güçlendirilmesinde önemli bir hukuksal araçtır. Kanun hükmünde kararnameler, güçlü devlet ve güçlü yürütmeye önem veren 1982 Anayasasında bu doğrultuda düzenlenmiş (m. 91) ve Bakanlar Kurulu'nun kanun hükmünde kararname çıkarma yetkisinin kapsamı genişletilmiştir. Olağanüstü dönemlerde çıkarılacak kanun hükmünde kararnamelerin (. 121, 122) anayasaya aykırılığı ileri sürülememektedir. Kanun hükmünde kararnamenin hukuksal niteliğinin belirlenmesi ve yetki yasası ile ilişkisinin saptanması için öncelikle yürütmenin olağan düzenleme yetkisinin kapsam ve sınırlarının belirlenmesi gerekir. Olağan düzenleme yetkisi yasaya bağlı, türevsel bir nitelik taşımaktadır. Yürütme yasalara aykırı düzenleme yapamaz. Yasanın olduğu yerde yürütme ve idarenin yasaya uyma ve yasayı uygulama görevi vardır. Ancak kanun hükmünde kararname ile yürütme organı yasaları değiştirebilmekte ve bir alanda ilk kez yasa gücünde düzenleme yapabilmektedir. Bu nedenle -hangi koşullara bağlanmış olursa olsun- kanun hükmünde kararname çıkarma yetkisinin verilmesi yasama yetkisinin devredilmezliği ilkesinin istisnasını oluşturmaktadır. Bakanlar Kurulu'nun bu yetkiyi kullanmasının önkoşulu, anayasaya uygun bir yetki yasasının varlığıdır. Yetki yasası özel nitelikli bir yasadır ve Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi'nin kanun hükmünde kararname çıkarma yetkisi vermesi, yasa yapma yetkisinden farklı bir yetkidir (m. 87). Yetki yasası, kanun hükmünde kararname ve kanun hükmünde kararnamenin Mecliste görüşülüp karara bağlanması anayasada öngörülen sürecin değişik aşamalarıdır. Yetki yasası ile kanun hükmünde kararname arasında sıkı bir bağ vardır ve bu bağ ancak kanun hükmünde kararnamenin Mecliste görüşülmesi ve Meclis iradesinin ortaya çıkması ile kesilir. Kanun hükmünde kararnamenin anayasaya uygunluğu sorunu yetki yasasının anayasaya uygunluğu sorununu da kapsamaktadır.
|
|
The subject of this thesis is about the "law-amending ordinances" of the Council of Ministers which is generally called "delegated legislation" in Anglo- American law. This power differs from the ordinary regulation of executive branch. Because, according to the Turkish Constitution the legislative power must be exercised by the Turkish Grand National Assembly and the rule making power of the executive (and administrative authorities) does not involve the law-amending power. Ordinary regulative acts of executive (regulations and by-laws) shall not conflict with the law and the regulative power of the executive is not original, but only derivative. Because of this, a regulative act of executive cannot regulate any subject which was not regulated by legislation priorly. But the Council of Ministers can do this by issuing "law-amending ordinances". This power is a constitutional exception of the prohibition of the delegation of legislative power written in article 7. This amending power was not involved in the 1961 Constitution of Turkey, but was modified for the first time by the 1971 amendments of the Constitution. The "ratio causa" of this power is the need for a strong state: In modern world, strengthening the executive authority is considered as the only way of solving the problems of modern social life. And giving law-amending powers to the executive is dominant and the generally accepted way of strengthening the executive. In the 1982 Constitution of Turkey, article 91 titled "Authorisation to Enact Decrees Having Force of Law" expanded this power of the executive. Also, article 121 and 122 involves a special kind of "law-amending ordinances" during periods of martial law and state of emergency. These ordinances differ from ordinary "law- amending ordinances" and are not the subject of this thesis. According to article 91 "The Turkish Grand National Assembly may empower the Council of Ministers to issue decrees having force of law." But the fundemental rights, individual rights and duties included in the first and second chapter of the second part of the constitution and the political rights and duties listed in the fourth chapter cannot be regulated by decrees having force of law except during periods of martial law and states of emergency. The "enabling act" must involve and define the purpose, scope, principles and the period that the "law-amending ordinances" can be issued. Judicial review of "law-amending ordinances" is done by the Constitutional Court. Because of the strict relation between the "enabling act" and the "law-amending ordinances", judicial review of constitutionality involves the review of constitutionality of the "enabling act" and the conformity of "law-amending ordinances" with "enabling act". An ordinance issued by the power given by an unconstitutional "enabling act" will be unconstitutional although its provisions conform to the constitution. Some practical problems caused by this strict relation must be solved. If the Constitutional Court annul (invalidate) an "enabling act", then problem of the constitutionality of "law-amending ordinance" which was issued by the power given by this "enabling act" will arise. In this case, such an ordinance will become unconstitutional but will not be annuled automatically. Only the Constitutional Court may annul it when it is sued. The Constitutional Court may also give a "stay order" for an "enabling act". This will not affect the ordinance automatically. The Constitutional Court must give a "stay order" for the ordinance as well. Because, the "enabling act" is not annuled by the "stay order" and there is a chance of being constitutional. So that, the Constitutional Court must give the final decision about the "enabling act" and then review the ordinance and give the final decision according to the final decision about the "enabling act" |
