İdarenin kusursuz sorumluluğu -Eleştirel yaklaşım-

Abstract

İdarenin sorumluluğu öğreti ve mahkeme içtihadlarında kusurlu sorumlulukve kusursuz sorumluluk olmak üzere ikiye ayrılmaktadır. Çalışmada,kusursuz sorumluluğun geçerli olacağı alanı tesbit edebilmek için önceliklekusurlu sorumluluğun yani hizmet kusurundan sorumluluğun ne anlamageldiği üzerinde durulmuştur.İdarenin kusursuz sorumluluğunu açıklamak içinse, Türk ve Fransız Öğretisindeve İçtihadlarında kullanılan belirli ilke ve kavramlar incelenmiştir.İdarenin kusursuz sorumluluğunu açıklayan ilkelerin uygulandığı İdariYargı Kararlarının irdelenmesi sonucunda,?eylem? ile ?zarar? arasında nedensellikbağı kurulmasının bazı hallerde güçlük teşkil ettiğinin görülmesi,sorumluluk hukukuna ilişkin önemli bir sorun olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır.İdarenin kusursuz sorumluluğu ile ilgili yargı kararları incelendiğinde, İdareHukukunda sorumluluğa esas teşkil eden ilkelerin başkalaşım geçirdiklerisöylenebilecektir.Bu başkalaşım, çalışmanın ilk bölümünde, idari yargı kararları ışığındaklasik kusursuz sorumluluk kurgusunu sorgulamayı gerektirmiştir. İkincibölümde ise, böyle bir sorgulama sonucunda, klasik kurgunun bozulmasıihtimali irdelenmektedir.İngilizce ÖzetAccording to the doctrine and jurisprudence of administrative law, the responsibilityof the administration for the consequences of its action mayeither be with or without fault. The responsibility of the administrationwith fault (fault in public service) was taken basis in order to determinethe area of the responsibility of the administration without fault.Two major theories are applied by the Turkish and French Supreme Administrativecourts which establish the responsibility of the administrationwithout fault: The Theory of Risk and The Rupture of Equality, both ofwhich were examined in this research.The difficulties that are seen from time to time, while establishing the relationbetween the ?act? and the ?damage?, which can be witnessed inadministrative case law concerning the principles of the responsibilitywithout fault, constitutes one of the major problems in responsibility law.Thus, it can be said that the principles that form the essence of the responsibilityof the administration can not be defined by traditional means.It is for this that these concepts have evolved and will continue evolving.This evolution necessities one to question, taking in to account the administrativelaw jurisprudence, the traditional doctrine of responsibilitylaw. Then, after having achieved this analysis, one must look in to thepossibility that this traditional construct should be abandoned.

According to the doctrine and jurisprudence of administrative law, the responsibilityof the administration for the consequences of its action mayeither be with or without fault. The responsibility of the administrationwith fault (fault in public service) was taken basis in order to determinethe area of the responsibility of the administration without fault.Two major theories are applied by the Turkish and French Supreme Administrativecourts which establish the responsibility of the administrationwithout fault: The Theory of Risk and The Rupture of Equality, both ofwhich were examined in this research.The difficulties that are seen from time to time, while establishing the relationbetween the ?act? and the ?damage?, which can be witnessed inadministrative case law concerning the principles of the responsibilitywithout fault, constitutes one of the major problems in responsibility law.Thus, it can be said that the principles that form the essence of the responsibilityof the administration can not be defined by traditional means.It is for this that these concepts have evolved and will continue evolving.This evolution necessities one to question, taking in to account the administrativelaw jurisprudence, the traditional doctrine of responsibilitylaw. Then, after having achieved this analysis, one must look in to thepossibility that this traditional construct should be abandoned.