Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi / 2013 / Cilt: 62 - Sayı: 3

The Concept of Presumption, Legal Presumptions and Fictions

KARİNE KAVRAMI, KANUNİ KARİNELER VE VARSAYIMLAR

Pages
729–759
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)

Lawmakers aim to give instruction by means of absolute legal presumptions and fictions about the application of the rules to the case B which are foreseen for case A.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Presumption is a concept that help us to draw a conclusion about an unknown fact.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Legal presumption or legal deduction is a concept which is regulated in law and that help us to make a conclusion about an unknown fact.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Lawmakers aim to give instruction by means of absolute legal presumptions and fictions about the application of the rules to the case B which are foreseen for case A.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Presumption is a concept that help us to draw a conclusion about an unknown fact. Legal presumption or legal deduction is a concept which is regulated in law and that help us to make a conclusion about an unknown fact. There are two kinds of legal presumptions. One of them is rebuttable and the other one can not be rebutted. The rebuttable one is called an ordinary presumption. Ordinary presumptions are related to burden of proof and they determine who will carry the risk of non-conclusiveness. A non- rebuttalble presumption is called an “absolute presumption”. An absolute presumption is not related to burden of proof such as “fictions”. An “absolute presumptions” and “fictions” are reference rules. Lawmakers aim to give instruction by means of absolute legal presumptions and fictions about the application of the rules to the case B which are foreseen for case A.

Özet

Karine, varlığı bilinmeyen bir olgu hakkında sonuç çıkarmamızı sağlayan bir işaret, belirtidir. Kanuni karineler ise varlığı bilinmeyen bir olgu hakkında sonuç çıkarmamazı sağlayan ve kanunda öngörülmüş olan işaretler, belirtilerdir. Kanuni karineler, karineden hareketle ulaşılan sonucun aksinin ispat edilip edilememesine göre aksi ispat edilebilen ve aksi ispat edilemeyen karineler olarak ikiye ayrılır. Aksi ispat edilebilen karinelere adi kanuni karineler denir. Adi kanuni karineler, ispat yükü kuralıdır ve ispatsızlığın riskini hangi tarafın taşıyacağını belirlerler. Aksi ispat edilemeyen karineler ise kesin kanuni karinelerdir. Kesin kanuni karinelerin ise tıpkı varsayımlar gibi ispat yükü ile bir ilgisi bulunmamaktadır. Kesin kanuni karineler ve varsayımlar atıf kurallarıdır. Yasa koyucu kesin kanuni karineler ve varsayımlar yoluyla a olayı için öngörülen sonucun b olayı için de uygulanması konusunda hakime talimat vermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARAKAŞ, F. T. (2013). The Concept of Presumption, Legal Presumptions and Fictions. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 62 - Sayı: 3, 729–759. https://ajindex.com/articles/220129

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Atalay, Oğuz (2001), Menfi Vakıaların Đspatı, Đzmir: D. E. Ü. Rektörlük Matbaası. Başözen, Ahmet (2010), Medeni Usul Hukukunda Đlk Görünüş Đspatı, Ankara:
  2. Adalet Yayınevi.
  3. Deschenaux, Henri (1967),
  4. Schweizerisches Privatrecht, Basel - Stuttgart: Verlag von Helbing Lichtenhahn. Edis, Seyfullah (1997), Medeni Hukuka Giriş ve Başlangıç Hükümleri, (6. bs.), Ankara:
  5. Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi. Egger, August (1930), Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuch, Einleitung, Art. 1-10, Zürich: Schulthess. Forstmoser, Peter/Vogt, Hans-Ueli (2008) Einführung in das Recht, (4. Aufl.), Bern: Stämpfli. Göksu, Tarkan (2007), Handkommentar zum Schweizer Privatrecht, Art. 8- 10 ZGB, Zürich - Basel - Genf: Schulthess. Guggenbühl, Markus (1990), Die gesetzlichen Vermutungen des Privatrechts und ihre Wirkungen im Zivilprozess, Zürich: Schulthess Polygraphischer Verlag. Hausheer, Heinz/Jaun, Manuel (2003), Stämpflis Handkommentar, Die Einleitungsartikel des ZGB, Art. 1-10
  6. ZGB, Bern: Stämpfli. Hedemann, Justus W. (1904), Die Vermutung nach dem Recht des deutschen Reiches, Jena: Verlag von Gustav Fischer. Karafakih, Đsmail H. (1964) "Vasıtalı Deliller", Ansay Armağanı, 169-180.
  7. Koçhisarlıoğlu, Cengiz (1984) "Karine ve Borçlar Kanununun 96. Maddesindeki Kusur Karinesi", Yargıtay Dergisi, C. 10, S. 3, 272-284.
  8. Kummer, Max (1966),
  9. Berner Kommentar, Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Privatrecht, Band I Einleitung und Personenrecht, Einleitung, Art. 1-10
  10. ZGB, Bern: Verlag Stämpfli Cie. Kuru, Baki/Arslan, Ramazan/Yılmaz, Ejder (2010), Medeni Usul Hukuku, (21. bs.), Ankara:
  11. Yetkin Yayınları.
  12. Kuru, Baki (2001), Hukuk Muhakemeleri Usulü, (6. bs.), C. II, Đstanbul: Demir - Demir. Larenz, K./Canaris, C. W. (1995), Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft, (3. Aufl.), Berlin usw.: Springer. Leipold, Dieter (1966), Beweislastregeln und gesetzliche Vermutungen, Schriften zum Prozessrecht, Bd. 4, Berlin: Duncker - Humblot. Musielak, Hans J. (1975), Die Grundlagen der Beweislast im Zivilprozess, Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Musielak, Hans J. (1987), "Gegenwartsprobleme der Beweislast", Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess, 100, 385-411.
  13. Musielak, Hans J./Stadler, Max (1984),
  14. Grundfragen des Beweisrechts, Schriftenreihe der juristischen Schulung, Heft 89, München: C. H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Oğuzman, Kemal/Barlas, Nami (2012),
  15. Medeni Hukuk, Giriş, Kaynaklar, Temel Kavramlar, B. 18, Đstanbul, Vedat Kitapçılık. Özdiler - Küçük, Eda (2011),
  16. Vergi Hukukunda Karineler, Ankara: Adalet Yayınevi. Pe