Türkiye’de orman mülkiyetinde tarihi süreç ve avrupa insan hakları mahkemesi kararları
Yükleniyor...
Dosyalar
Tarih
2010
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Türkiye’de orman sınırlama çalışmalarına 1937 tarih ve 3116 Sayılı Yasa’yla başlanması ile birlikte, idari ve adli yargıya taşınan, yoğun orman mülkiyet çekişmeleri de yaşanmaya başlamıştır. İç hukuk ve yargı alanında, halkın yakınmalarına rağmen, oturmuş bir uygulama sürecine girilmiş iken, bu kez de orman mülkiyeti sorunun Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi (AİHM)’ne taşınmıştır. Türkiye tarafından “zorunlu yargı yetkisi” tanınmış olan AİHM, Türkiye’de ormanlar üzerende tapuya dayalı özel mülkiyet iddialarının reddedilmesini hak ihlali olarak nitelendirilmiştir. Bunun üzerine Kadastro Kanununda değişiklik yapılarak, kadastro tutanaklarının kesinleştiği tarihten itibaren on yıl geçtikten sonra, özel şahıslar gibi devletinde, kadastrodan önceki hukuki sebeplere dayanarak itiraz edemeyeceği, dava açamayacağı kuralı getirilmiştir. 5841 Sayılı Yasa ile getirilen değişikliğin sorunu çözemeyeceği, hatta yeni adaletsizliklere ve orman tahribine neden olacağı iddiaları öne sürülmekte olup, düzenlemenin iptali için Anayasa Mahkemesi’ne de müracaat edilmiştir. Yasa değişikliği, AİHM kararına uygunluk açısından olumlu etkiye sahip olmakla birlikte, orman mülkiyet sorunlarına kapsamlı çözüm getirmekten uzaktır. Türk aydınları, halkı memnun edecek, orman varlığının da korunması ve sürekliliğini sağlayacak çözüm yolu üretebilir. Bu konuda alternatif bir yaklaşım olarak; Devlet ormanlarının içinde olup orman bütünlüğünü bozan tapu ile sahipli ormanların kamulaştırılması, bu tür ormanlar dışında, tarım ve yerleşim alanları ile iç içe olan tapulu orman parçalarının ise özel mülkiyette bırakılması yoluna gidilebilir.
Land ownership disputes have been extensively made a subject matter for the administrative and civil and criminal jurisdiction since the start of the demarcation of forestland areas according to the Forestry Act 3116 of 1937. While there has been a more or less settled application of the act, with some uneasiness on the side of the people, now the matter has been brought to the attention of the European Court of Human Rights. ECHR to which was granted compulsory judicial power by Turkey, has described the rejection of the claims of private land ownership on the basis of land ownership certificates as the violation of rights. Thus, an amendment has been made to the cadastre act to establish a rule preventing the state as well as the public to appeal or file a court case after ten years from the date of the official cadasral reports were finalized and declared on the grounds of legal considerations prior to cadastre. It is argued that the amendments that came with the Act 5841 will not be enough to solve the problem and, perhaps, that it will lead to injustice and more damage to forests. Therefore, a case was filed to the supreme court for the annulment of the legal arrangement. While the amendment made to the law has a positive effect in terms of the compatibility to the ECHR decision, it is quite far from producing a comprehensive solution to the ownership problems in forestry. Turkish intellectuals can find ways in which solutions can be formulated both to satisfy the public and to ensure the protection and the sustainability of forest resources. In this regard, an alternative approach could be that private lands that breaks the integrity of and is located within a forest ecosystem could be nationalized, and that lands outside the forested areas with private ownership certificates could be given back to the possession of private landholders in areas where agriculture is common land use form within and around residential areas.
Land ownership disputes have been extensively made a subject matter for the administrative and civil and criminal jurisdiction since the start of the demarcation of forestland areas according to the Forestry Act 3116 of 1937. While there has been a more or less settled application of the act, with some uneasiness on the side of the people, now the matter has been brought to the attention of the European Court of Human Rights. ECHR to which was granted compulsory judicial power by Turkey, has described the rejection of the claims of private land ownership on the basis of land ownership certificates as the violation of rights. Thus, an amendment has been made to the cadastre act to establish a rule preventing the state as well as the public to appeal or file a court case after ten years from the date of the official cadasral reports were finalized and declared on the grounds of legal considerations prior to cadastre. It is argued that the amendments that came with the Act 5841 will not be enough to solve the problem and, perhaps, that it will lead to injustice and more damage to forests. Therefore, a case was filed to the supreme court for the annulment of the legal arrangement. While the amendment made to the law has a positive effect in terms of the compatibility to the ECHR decision, it is quite far from producing a comprehensive solution to the ownership problems in forestry. Turkish intellectuals can find ways in which solutions can be formulated both to satisfy the public and to ensure the protection and the sustainability of forest resources. In this regard, an alternative approach could be that private lands that breaks the integrity of and is located within a forest ecosystem could be nationalized, and that lands outside the forested areas with private ownership certificates could be given back to the possession of private landholders in areas where agriculture is common land use form within and around residential areas.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Orman Mülkiyeti, Ormanların Devletleştirilmesi, Orman Kadastrosu, Hak Düşürücü Süre, Orman Mülkiyetine Yönelik AİHM Kararları, Forest ownership, Nationalization, Forest cadastre, Barred by Prescription, ECHR decisions concerning forest ownership
Kaynak
III. Ulusal Karadeniz Ormancılık Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı (Cilt 1)
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
1
Sayı
Künye
Ayaz, H. (2010). Türkiye’de orman mülkiyetinde tarihi süreç ve avrupa insan hakları mahkemesi kararları, III. Ulusal Karadeniz Ormancılık Kongresi, Artvin, Türkiye, 20-22 Mayıs 2010, Cilt 1, 189-198.
