Ceza Hukukunda Varsayılan Rıza
Loading...
Date
2011
Authors
Kangal, Zeynel T.
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi
Open Access Color
OpenAIRE Downloads
OpenAIRE Views
Abstract
Varsayılan rıza Türk Ceza Kanunu’nda düzenlenmemiştir. Bu nedenle kanun
üstü bir hukuka uygunluk nedenidir. Varsayılan rıza, ilgilinin gerçek iradesinin
alınamadığı durumlarda, ilgiliye sorulabilse idi, müdahaleye rıza gösterirdi şeklindeki
bir tahmine dayanmaktadır. Varsayılan rıza izin verilen risk görüşüyle açıklanabilir.
Başkasının hukuksal alanına yapılan müdahalenin varsayılan rıza çerçevesinde
hukuka uygun olabilmesi için, ilgilinin üzerinde mutlak surette tasarruf edilebileceği
bir hakkının bulunması ve rıza açıklamaya ehil olması, ilgilinin rızasının alınamaması
ve failin ilgilinin veya kendi yararına hareket etmesi gerekmektedir. İlgilinin gerçek
iradesinin bilindiği durumlarda varsayılan rızaya dayanılamaz. Failin kendi ve
üçüncü bir kişi yararına hareket ettiği durumlarda da, sınırlı da olsa, varsayılan rıza
kabul edilmektedir. Varsayılan rızanın maddî koşullarında hata ve sınırın aşılması
hâlinde Türk Ceza Kanunu’nun ilgili hükümleri uygulama alanı bulacaktır.
Default consent is not regulated in Turkish Criminal Code. Therefore, its legal justifi cation is considered superior to existing law. Default consent is based on the prediction that relevant person allow offender’s intervention when his/her real consent could have been taken. Default consent can be explained in relation to acceptable risk. In order to justify the intervention to someone’s legal fi eld on the basis of default consent; relevant person must have a right to be concerned over the power of disposition in absolute terms and must be competent to explain consent or consent could not have been taken and the offender must have acted on his/her behalf or on behalf of the relevant person. When the relevant person’s real consent is known, default consent has no application. Although to a limited extent, default consent is accepted as a justifi cation when the offender acts on his/her behalf or behalf of the third person. In case of mistake on the objective conditions of default consent and execeeding the limit, the relevant provisions of Turkish Criminal Code will be applied.
Default consent is not regulated in Turkish Criminal Code. Therefore, its legal justifi cation is considered superior to existing law. Default consent is based on the prediction that relevant person allow offender’s intervention when his/her real consent could have been taken. Default consent can be explained in relation to acceptable risk. In order to justify the intervention to someone’s legal fi eld on the basis of default consent; relevant person must have a right to be concerned over the power of disposition in absolute terms and must be competent to explain consent or consent could not have been taken and the offender must have acted on his/her behalf or on behalf of the relevant person. When the relevant person’s real consent is known, default consent has no application. Although to a limited extent, default consent is accepted as a justifi cation when the offender acts on his/her behalf or behalf of the third person. In case of mistake on the objective conditions of default consent and execeeding the limit, the relevant provisions of Turkish Criminal Code will be applied.
Description
Keywords
Rıza, İzin verilen risk, Hukuka uygunluk, Tıbbî müdahaleler, Vekâletsiz iş görme, Consent, Acceptable Risk, Justification, Medical Interventions, Negotiorum Gestio (acting without authority)
Turkish CoHE Thesis Center URL
Fields of Science
Citation
1
WoS Q
Scopus Q
Source
Volume
15
Issue
4
Start Page
223
End Page
251