SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 67 - Sayı: 4

The Right to Acces to Documents in the Possession of the Other Party Within the Context of Turkish and German Laws of Civil Procedures

TÜRK VE ALMAN MEDENİ USUL HUKUKUNDA KARŞI TARAFIN ELİNDEKİ BELGEYE ULAŞABİLME İMKÂNLARI

Hilal ÜNAL KAYA
Pages
783–806
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This paper discusses the preferences of Turkish and German legislators in this context and the latest changes and judicial features in the related regulations

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Document is one of the most important tools for the act of proving because it includes information, thought or someone’s will.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It is a widespread case that the document which is related to the point that needs to be proved is possessed not by the party that is obliged to prove but the other side.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This paper discusses the preferences of Turkish and German legislators in this context and the latest changes and judicial features in the related regulations
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Document is one of the most important tools for the act of proving because it includes information, thought or someone’s will. It is a widespread case that the document which is related to the point that needs to be proved is possessed not by the party that is obliged to prove but the other side. In such cases it is up to the legislators to decide whether to force the the party that is not obliged to prove to present the document and the conditions under which they could be forced to do so. This paper discusses the preferences of Turkish and German legislators in this context and the latest changes and judicial features in the related regulations

Özet

Belge, doğrudan bir bilgi, düşünce veya irade açıklaması içermesi nedeniyle ispat faaliyetinde kullanılabilecek en önemli araçlardan birisidir. İspat edilmek istenen hususa ilişkin belgenin, ispat yükünü taşıyan tarafın elinde değil de, karşı tarafın elinde olduğu durumlara ise uygulamada sıkça rastlanmaktadır. İşte bu durumlarda, ispat yükünü taşımayan tarafın, belgeyi ibraza zorlanıp zorlanamayacağı, zorlanabilecekse hangi şartlar altında bunun gerçekleşeceği yasa koyucuların takdirine bırakılmıştır. Makalede Türk ve Alman yasa koyucunun bu yöndeki tercihleri, ilgili düzenlemelerdeki son değişiklikler ve hukuki nitelikleri tartışma konusu yapılacaktır

🔖

Cite This Article

KAYA, H. Ü. (2018). The Right to Acces to Documents in the Possession of the Other Party Within the Context of Turkish and German Laws of Civil Procedures. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 67 - Sayı: 4, 783–806. https://ajindex.com/articles/142476

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. Alangoya, Yavuz: Medeni Usul Hukukunda Vakıaların ve Delillerin Toplanmasına İlişkin İlkeler, Fakülteler Matbaası, İstanbul 1979.
  2. Albayrak, Hakan: Medeni Usul ve İcra İflas Hukukunda Yaklaşık İspat, Yetkin Yayınevi, Ankara 2013.
  3. Arens, Peter: Zur Aufklärungspflicht der nicht beweisbelasteten Partei im Zivilprozeß, ZZP 96 (1983), S. 1-24.
  4. Arslan, Ramazan/Yılmaz, Ejder/Taşpınar, Ayvaz Sema: Medeni Usul Hukuku, 3. Baskı Yetkin Yayınevi, Ankara 2017.
  5. Baumbach, Adolf/Lauterbach, Wolfgang/Albers, Jan/Hartmann, Peter: Zivilprozessordnung, C. H. Beck Verlag, 75. Auflage, München 2017. Beck'sche Online-Kommentar (BeckOK): ZPO, C. H. Beck Verlag, 27. Auflage, 2017.
  6. Börü, Levent: Medeni Usul Hukukunda İddia Ve Somutlaştırma Yükü, Yetkin Yayınevi, Ankara 2016.
  7. Erdönmez, Güray: Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu`na göre Delillerin Gösterilmesi ve İbrazı, IBD, Cilt: 87, Sayı: 5, 2013, S. 15-53.
  8. Erdönmez, Güray: Medeni Usul Hukukunda Belgelerin İbrazı Mecburiyeti, 2. Baskı,
  9. On iki Levha Yayıncılık, İstanbul 2014.
  10. Gaul, Hans Friedhelm: Zur Frage nach dem Zweck des Zivilprozesses, AcP 168 (1968), S. 27-62.
  11. Gottwald, Peter: Empfehlen sich im Interesse eines effektiven Rechtsschutzes Maßnahmen zur Vereinfachung, Vereinheitlichung und Beschränkung der Rechtsmittel und Rechtsbehelfe des Zivilverfahrensrechts? — Gutachten A, in: Ständige Deputation des Deutschen Juristentages (Hrsg.), Verhandlungen des einundsechzigsten Deutschen Juristentages — Karlsruhe 1996, Band I (Gutachten), München 1996, S. A 1-109.
  12. Göksu, Mustafa: Hukuk Yargılamasında Karşı Tarafın Elindeki Belgelere Delil Olarak Başvurulabilmesi, MIHDER, Cilt: 5, Sayı: 13, 2009, S. 251-282.
  13. Greger, Reinhard: Justizreform? Ja, aber., JZ 2000, S. 842-851.
  14. Gruber, Peter/Kießling, Erik: Die Vorlagepflichten der §§ 142 ff: ZPO nach der Reform 2002, ZZP 116 (2003), S. 305-333.
  15. Kraayvanger, Jan/Hilgard, Mark C.: Urkundenvorlegung im Zivilprozess. Annäherung an das amerikanische „discovery“-Verfahren?, NJ 2003, S. 572-575.
  16. Kuru, Baki: Medeni Usul Hukuku (Ders Kitabı), Yetkin Yayınevi, Ankara 2017.
  17. Lang, Johannes: Die Aufklärungspflicht der Parteien des Zivilprozesses vor dem Hintergrund der europäischen Rechtsvereinheitlichung, Duncker&Humblot Verlag, Berlin 1999.
  18. Lang, Sonja: Die Urkundenvorlagepflicht der Gegenpartei gemäß § 142 Abs. 1 Satz 1 ZPO, Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2007.
  19. Lorenz, Stephan: Die Neuregelung der pre-trial-Discovery im USamerikanischen Zivilprozeß- recht-Inspiration für den deutschen und europäischen Z