Türk, Alman ve İsviçre İdare Hukukunda Arabuluculuk

Mediation in Turkish German and Swiss Administrative Law

Atila ERKAL

Yargı dışı uyuşmazlık çözüm yöntemleri hukuk sistemlerine entegre edilmiş ve son yıllarda yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır. Arabuluculuk bunlar arasında önemli bir yere sahiptir. Özel hukuk uyuşmazlıklarının arabuluculuk yöntemiyle çözülmesi konusunda Türk, Alman ve İsviçre Hukuku’nda kanuni düzenlemeler yapılmıştır. Buna istinaden idarenin taraf olduğu özel hukuk uyuşmazlıkları arabuluculuk yoluyla çözüme kavuşturulabilmektedir. İdari uyuşmazlıklarda arabuluculuk konusunda ise Türk Hukuku’nda bir düzenleme bulunmamaktadır. Buna karşılık hem Alman hem de İsviçre Hukuku’nda idari uyuşmazlıkların arabuluculuk yöntemiyle giderilebilmesi konusunda düzenlemelere yer verilmiştir. İdari uyuşmazlıkların arabuluculuk yöntemiyle giderilmesi idari usul sürecinde olabileceği gibi idari yargılama usulünde de söz konusu olabilmektedir. Alman Arabuluculuk Kanunu kamu ve özel hukuk uyuşmazlık ayrımı yapmadığından her iki alana da uygulanabilmektedir. Ancak İdari Usul Kanunu’nda arabuluculuk konusunda doğrudan düzenleme olmasa da dolaylı hükümlerin mevcut olduğu kabul edilmektedir. Buna karşılık özel kanunlarda arabuluculuğa yer verilmektedir. İdari yargılama usulünde ise arabuluculuğun uygulanması konusunda Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’na atıfta bulunmaktadır. Buna istinaden idari yargılama usulünde diğer yargı dışı uyuşmazlık çözüm yöntemleri yanında, arabuluculuk yoluyla da uyuşmazlıklar çözülebilmektedir.

Arabuluculuk, İdari Uyuşmazlıklarda Arabuluculuk, İdari Yargıda Arabuluculuk, İdari Usulde Arabuluculuk, Yargı Dışı Uyuşmazlık Çözümü, Alman İdari Yargılama Usulü.

Non-judicial dispute resolution methods have been integrated into legal systems and have been widely used in recent years. Mediation has an important place among them. There are legal regulations in Turkish, German and Swiss Law regarding the resolution of private law disputes through mediation. Accordingly, private law disputes to which the administration is a party can be resolved through mediation. Mediation has become a method used in disputes subject to administrative law in recent years. The basis of this is that mediation is an interdisciplinary institution due to its applicability to many fields and legal disputes of different nature. Administrative law is familiar with alternative dispute methods. There are regulations regarding the settlement of monetary disputes to which the administration is a party, applying to the ombudsman, and arbitration in administrative contracts. Mediation in administrative disputes is not accepted in Turkish law and there are no legal regulations in this regard. On the other hand, in both German and Swiss law, there are regulations regarding the settlement of administrative disputes by mediation. The main debate in the field of administrative law is in which types of disputes the mediation method can be used. In administrative disputes involving the payment of a certain amount of money, to which the administration is a party, there is no problem in resolving them through mediation. In addition, the mediation method can be applied in the zoning law, especially in the construction plan, in the environmental law, in the economic administrative law, in the determination of meeting and demonstration marches and the determination of places, in education and school affairs, in the law of civil servants and especially in areas where the administration has discretion. Mediation is an optional way based on the consent of the parties. This process is carried out by a mediator. The mediator assists the parties in reconciliation by offering advice and suggestions that do not bind the parties in the resolution of the dispute. In this context, it is necessary to adequately enlighten the parties on the principles, process and results of mediation. The mediator does not have a duty or function to force or persuade the parties to a solution. Therefore, the mediator impartially determines the process himself and removes the barriers of negotiation between the parties, thereby helping the parties to agree on a solution of their own free will. Ultimately, reconciliation takes place under the will and responsibility of both parties. The parties to the dispute have the freedom of will in applying to the mediator, continuing the process, concluding or abandoning this process. The parties can agree to apply to a mediator before filing a lawsuit or during the trial. The judge also has the authority to enlighten and encourage the parties to apply to a mediator. The resolution of administrative disputes by mediation can be in the administrative procedure as well as in the administrative proceedings. In the mediation in the administrative procedure process, there is no direct binding legal result on the agreed issue. The administration adapts the settlement achieved through mediation to the decision it will take, and carries out the transaction with its unilateral will. Therefore, the final act of executive nature is established by the will of the administration and under its responsibility. Mediation is more of a preparatory process. The Swiss Code of Administrative Procedure directly regulates mediation. On the other hand, although there is no direct regulation on mediation in the German Administrative Procedure Law, it is accepted that there are indirect provisions. Mediation is included in special laws. Since the German Mediation Law does not distinguish between public and private law disputes, it can be applied to both areas. It refers to the Code of Civil Procedure on the implementation of mediation in administrative proceedings. Accordingly, in administrative proceedings, besides other non-judicial dispute resolution methods, disputes can also be resolved through mediation. Administrative jurisdiction has the discretion to direct the parties of the case to a mediator or other non-judicial (alternative) dispute resolution methods at every stage of the proceedings. For the friendly and peacefully settlement of the dispute, the court can refer directly to the friendly settlement judge called Güterichter. The friendly settlement judge is chosen from among the judges outside the court who have the power to decide on the dispute in question. If the friendly settlement judge has suggested the mediation method, it is obligatory to obtain the consent of the parties to go to the mediator. The judge cannot act as a mediator. In this case, the parties to the dispute choose a mediator. As mentioned above, the provisions of the Mediation Law are applied in the mediation procedure. The mediator cannot make a decision himself, and the parties can reach a compromise with their consent and responsibilities. If a consensus has been reached, it must be documented with an agreement and the administrative proceedings are terminated accordingly. Mediation has both advantages and disadvantages. Since mediation in administrative disputes is a new model that envisages cooperation between the state and citizens, its integration into administrative law will be beneficial in many areas. In the execution procedure of the administrative act, before the administrative decision is taken, a compromise can be reached between the addressee of the administrative act and the administration through mediation, and the lawsuits can be avoided. In this context, mediation helps the development of a conciliatory administrative culture in line with today’s needs. Another important benefit of mediation is that it serves to render justice faster and cheaper. On the other hand, the violation of transparency due to the confidentiality of the mediation process entails the danger of violating the interests and legal protections of third parties who may be affected by the event reached through mediation. In addition, if a compromise cannot be reached, the process of reaching a certain result is prolonged and mediation costs are added in addition to the legal costs.

Mediation, Mediation in Administrative Disputes, Mediation in Administrative Jurisdiction, Mediation in Administrative Procedure, Extrajudicial Dispute Resolution, German Administrative Procedure.

Extended Abstract

Non-judicial dispute resolution methods have been integrated into legal systems and have been widely used in recent years. Mediation has an important place among them. There are legal regulations in Turkish, German and Swiss Law regarding the resolution of private law disputes through mediation. Accordingly, private law disputes to which the administration is a party can be resolved through mediation.
Mediation has become a method used in disputes subject to administrative law in recent years. The basis of this is that mediation is an interdisciplinary institution due to its applicability to many fields and legal disputes of different nature. Administrative law is familiar with alternative dispute methods. There are regulations regarding the settlement of monetary disputes to which the administration is a party, applying to the ombudsman, and arbitration in administrative contracts. Mediation in administrative disputes is not accepted in Turkish law and there are no legal regulations in this regard. On the other hand, in both German and Swiss law, there are regulations regarding the settlement of administrative disputes by mediation.
The main debate in the field of administrative law is in which types of disputes the mediation method can be used. In administrative disputes involving the payment of a certain amount of money, to which the administration is a party, there is no problem in resolving them through mediation. In addition, the mediation method can be applied in the zoning law, especially in the construction plan, in the environmental law, in the economic administrative law, in the determination of meeting and demonstration marches and the determination of places, in education and school affairs, in the law of civil servants and especially in areas where the administration has discretion.
Mediation is an optional way based on the consent of the parties. This process is carried out by a mediator. The mediator assists the parties in reconciliation by offering advice and suggestions that do not bind the parties in the resolution of the dispute. In this context, it is necessary to adequately enlighten the parties on the principles, process and results of mediation. The mediator does not have a duty or function to force or persuade the parties to a solution. Therefore, the mediator impartially determines the process himself and removes the barriers of negotiation between the parties, thereby helping the parties to agree on a solution of their own free will. Ultimately, reconciliation takes place under the will and responsibility of both parties. The parties to the dispute have the freedom of will in applying to the mediator, continuing the process, concluding or abandoning this process. The parties can agree to apply to a mediator before filing a lawsuit or during the trial. The judge also has the authority to enlighten and encourage the parties to apply to a mediator.
The resolution of administrative disputes by mediation can be in the administrative procedure as well as in the administrative proceedings. In the mediation in the administrative procedure process, there is no direct binding legal result on the agreed issue. The administration adapts the settlement achieved through mediation to the decision it will take, and carries out the transaction with its unilateral will. Therefore, the final act of executive nature is established by the will of the administration and under its responsibility. Mediation is more of a preparatory process. The Swiss Code of Administrative Procedure directly regulates mediation. On the other hand, although there is no direct regulation on mediation in the German Administrative Procedure Law, it is accepted that there are indirect provisions. Mediation is included in special laws. Since the German Mediation Law does not distinguish between public and private law disputes, it can be applied to both areas. It refers to the Code of Civil Procedure on the implementation of mediation in administrative proceedings. Accordingly, in administrative proceedings, besides other non-judicial dispute resolution methods, disputes can also be resolved through mediation.
Administrative jurisdiction has the discretion to direct the parties of the case to a mediator or other non-judicial (alternative) dispute resolution methods at every stage of the proceedings. For the friendly and peacefully settlement of the dispute, the court can refer directly to the friendly settlement judge called Güterichter. The friendly settlement judge is chosen from among the judges outside the court who have the power to decide on the dispute in question. If the friendly settlement judge has suggested the mediation method, it is obligatory to obtain the consent of the parties to go to the mediator. The judge cannot act as a mediator. In this case, the parties to the dispute choose a mediator. As mentioned above, the provisions of the Mediation Law are applied in the mediation procedure. The mediator cannot make a decision himself, and the parties can reach a compromise with their consent and responsibilities. If a consensus has been reached, it must be documented with an agreement and the administrative proceedings are terminated accordingly.
Mediation has both advantages and disadvantages. Since mediation in administrative disputes is a new model that envisages cooperation between the state and citizens, its integration into administrative law will be beneficial in many areas. In the execution procedure of the administrative act, before the administrative decision is taken, a compromise can be reached between the addressee of the administrative act and the administration through mediation, and the lawsuits can be avoided. In this context, mediation helps the development of a conciliatory administrative culture in line with today’s needs. Another important benefit of mediation is that it serves to render justice faster and cheaper. On the other hand, the violation of transparency due to the confidentiality of the mediation process entails the danger of violating the interests and legal protections of third parties who may be affected by the event reached through mediation. In addition, if a compromise cannot be reached, the process of reaching a certain result is prolonged and mediation costs are added in addition to the legal costs.

GİRİŞ

Hukuki uyuşmazlıkların giderilmesinde alternatif uyuşmazlık çözüm yöntemleri üzerinde yoğun çalışmalar bulunmaktadır. Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nde ortaya çıkan¹ ve kısaca ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) olarak ifade edilen bu yöntemlerde, yargıya başvurmadan tarafsız ve bağımsız bir üçüncü kişinin katılımıyla taraflar arası bir uzlaşma sağlanması amaçlanmaktadır.² Yargının yükünün ağır olması, yargılamanın uzun sürmesi, adaletin geç tecelli etmesi gibi sebeplerin yanında tarafların bir araya gelerek sorunlarını daha etkili bir şekilde çözebilme imkânı ADR’nin yaygınlaşmasında etkili olmaktadır. Alternatif uyuşmazlık çözüm yöntemleri arabuluculuk, sulh, tahkim, uzlaşma ve ombudsman gibi çeşitlere ayrılmaktadır. Bunlar arasında arabuluculuk yöntemi son yıllarda değer kazanmaya başlamış ve bir çok hukuk sistemine entegre edilmiştir. Avrupa Birliği Parlamentosu ve Konseyi de 2008/52/EG sayılı Medeni ve Ticari Konularda Arabuluculuğun Belirli Yönleri Hakkındaki Direktif’i kabul etmiştir. Almanya ve Avrupa Birliği’ne üye diğer ülkeler bu direktifi iç hukuklarına uyarlamıştır. Türkiye’de 2012 yılında yürürlüğe giren 6325 sayılı Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu (HUAK) ile hukuk uyuşmazlıklarının, diğer bir ifadeyle özel hukuka tabi uyuşmazlıkların arabuluculuk yoluyla çözümlenmesi imkânı getirerek arabuluculuğu hukuk sistemine dahil etmiştir.

Arabuluculuk ağırlıklı olarak özel hukuk uyuşmazlıkları için kabul edilmişken, son yıllarda idare hukukuna tabi uyuşmazlıklarda da başvurulan bir yöntem haline gelmiştir. Bunun temelinde, arabuluculuğun birçok alana ve farklı nitelikteki hukuki uyuşmazlığa uygulanabilir yapısı nedeniyle interdisipliner bir müessese olması yatmaktadır.³ İdare hukuku aslında alternatif uyuşmazlık yöntemlerine yabancı değildir. İdarenin taraf olduğu parasal nitelikli uyuşmazlıkların sulh yoluyla çözülmesi, ombudsmana başvurulması, idari sözleşmelerde tahkim yoluna gidilebilmesi konusunda pozitif düzenlemeler bulunmaktadır. İdare hukuku alanında temel tartışma, arabuluculuk yöntemine hangi tür uyuşmazlıklarda gidilebileceği hususunda yoğunlaşmaktadır. İdarenin, idare hukukuna tabi faaliyetleri yanında özel hukuka tabi faaliyetleri de söz konusu olmaktadır. İdarenin özel malları üzerinde tasarrufları, kiralama, abonman ve taşıma sözleşmeleri, ihale akabinde akdettiği sözleşmeler, kamu iktisadi teşebbüslerinin faaliyetleri gibi birçok faaliyeti ağırlıklı olarak özel hukuka tabi tutulmaktadır. Özel hukuka tabi faaliyetleri konusunda arabuluculuğa gidilebilmesinin önünde bir engel bulunmamaktadır. Buna karşılık kamusal yönetim usulleri çerçevesinde yürüttüğü faaliyetlerde üstün ve ayrıcalıklı yetkileri, kamu gücü kullanımı, tek taraflılık, kamu yararı ve kamu düzeni gibi hususlar, arabuluculuğa gidilebilmesinde bir duraksamaya yol açsa da imkânsız görünmemektedir. Ancak bunun sınırlarının özel hukuktaki gibi geniş olamayacağı bir gerçektir. İdari eylem, idari işlem ve idari sözleşmeler ile kanunla verilen yetki çerçevesinde kişilerin hak ve hürriyetlerin sınırlandırılmasında, arabuluculuğun hangi ölçüde uygulamaya elverişli olduğu konuları tartışmaların merkezinde yer almaktadır.

Türk hukukunda idarenin kamusal yönetim usulleri çerçevesinde yaptığı tasarruflardan kaynaklanan uyuşmazlıkların, arabuluculuk yoluyla çözümlenmesi konusunda pozitif düzenlemeler bulunmamaktadır. Buna karşılık idarenin özel hukuka tabi faaliyetlerinde arabuluculuğa gidilebileceği kanunla hüküm altına alınmıştır. Karşılaştırmalı hukuka baktığımızda ise Almanya’da arabuluculuğa gidilmesinde özel -kamu hukuku ayrımı yapılmadığını görmekteyiz. Alman hukukunda, idare hukukundan kaynaklanan bazı uyuşmazlıklarda ve özellikle idari usul sürecinde arabuluculuğa gidilebilmesine imkân tanınmıştır. Buna karşılık Avusturya, Arabuluculuk Kanunu’nu özel hukuk uyuşmazlıkları ile sınırlandırmış; idari uyuşmazlıklarda ise Çevresel Etki Değerlendirme Kanunu (Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungsgesetz-UVPG) md. 16/2’de olduğu gibi alan bazlı özel düzenlemelerde yer vermiştir. İsviçre ise arabuluculuğu İdari Usul Kanunu’na entegre etmiştir.⁴

Bu çalışmada öncelikle idarenin özel hukuka tabi tasarruflarında arabuluculuk ele alınacaktır. Akabinde Alman ve İsviçre idare hukukunda arabuluculuk müessesesi ele alınarak hangi tür uyuşmazlıklarda gidilebileceği ve Türk hukukunda uygulanabilirliği incelenecektir.