Türk Hukukuyla mukayeseli olarak Azerbaycan Hukukunda sigortacının rücu hakkı
Yükleniyor...
Dosyalar
Tarih
2008
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Sigortalının ?haksız zenginleşmesi?, zarar sorumlusu üçüncü kişinin hiçbir müeyyideye tâbi tutulmadan ?sorumluluktan kurtulmasının karşısının alınması? için sigorta hukukunda benimsenen sigortacının halefiyete dayalı rücu hakkı Türk hukukunda (TTK.m.1301) olduğu gibi, Azerbaycan hukukunda da açık hükümle (AMM.m.916. ve ASK.m.37) Kanun Koyucu tarafından düzenlenmiştir. Bununla birlikte Azerbaycan hukukunda kara sigortaları açısından sigortacının halefiyeti iki farklı kanunda hemen hemen aynı hükümlerle düzenlenmiş olması kanun yapma tekniği açısından isabetli olmadığı gibi, uygulamada da karışıklıklara neden olmaktadır. Sigortacının halefiyete dayalı rücu hakkını düzenleyen hükümlerin (AMM.m.916 ve ASK.m.37), sigortalının ?haksız zenginleşmesinin? ve ?zarar sorumlusunun sorumluluktan kurtulmasının karşının alınması? gibi, ?kamu menfaatine? hizmet eden hükümler olduğu açıktır. Buna rağmen, Türk hukukundan farklı olarak Azerbaycan hukukunda bu hükümlerin (AMM.m.916 ve ASK.37) ?amir nitelikte? olup olmadığı kanunda düzenlenmediği gibi, hükmün metninden de bunu tespit etmek kolay değildir. Diğer taraftan kanunların (AMM ve ASK) gerekçeli metinleri kamuoyuna duyurulmaması sebebiyle, bu hükümlerin amir olup olmadığı konusunda Kanun Koyucunun gerçek amacına ulaşmak da kabil değildir. Bu olumsuzluklara rağmen, Azerbaycan hukukunda sigortacının halefiyetini düzenleyen hükümlerin (AMM.m.916 ve ASK.m.37) ?amacı gereği? ve ?sigortalının istismarını engelleyen hüküm olması? sebebiyle sigorta sözleşmesi tarafları açısından emredici nitelikte olduğunu AMM'nin sistemini dikkate alarak savunmak mümkündür. Sigortacının halefiyete dayalı rücu hakkının zarar sigortalarında, özellikle mal üzerindeki menfaatin sigortalanmasında geçerli olduğu tereddütsüz olduğu halde, bu kuralın sorumluluk sigortaları açısından geçerli olmadığı eskiden Türk hukukunda kabul edilmekteydi. Bununla birlikte, Türk hukukunda sorumluluk sigortaları açısından halefiyete dayalı rücu hakkının geçerli olmadığı yönündeki ?eski görüş? terk edilmiştir. Azerbaycan hukukunda ?isteğe bağlı sorumluluk sigortaları? AMM'nin ?sigorta? başlığını taşıyan 50. faslının ?zarar sigortaları? başlığını taşıyan 3. paragrafın 923. vd maddelerinde hükme bağlanmıştır. Can ve kaza sigortaları olarak tasnif edilen meblağ sigortalarında halefiyet ilkesi, hem Türk, hem de Azerbaycan hukukunda benimsenmemiştir. Bununla birlikte, meblağ sigortası olmasına rağmen, zarar sigortası ilkeleri ile çalışan ?hastalık sigortasında? tedavi giderleri bakımından halefiyet yasağı ilkesi istisnaya uğramaktadır. Sigortacının halefiyete dayalı rücu hakkının kazanılması için hem Türk, hem de Azerbaycan hukukunda iki şartın mevcut olması gerektiği Kanun Koyucu tarafından hükme bağlanmıştır. Bunlardan birincisi, ?sigortacının zarar sorumlusuna sigorta tazminatının ödemiş olması? şartı olduğu halde, diğer şart ise, ?sigortalının zararı ika eden üçüncü şahsa karşı bir dava hakkının bulunmasıdır?. Bununla birlikte, doktrin ve uygulamada hâkim olan görüşe göre, sigortacının halefiyete dayalı rücu hakkının gerçekleşmesi için yasada belirtilen iki şartla birlikte, üçüncü şartın, yani ?sigortacıyla sigortalı arasında geçerli bir hukuki ilişkinin bulunması? şartının da gerçekleşmesi gerekir. Sigorta tazminatını ödeyerek sigortalının yerine kaim olan sigortacının zarar sorumlusuna karşı rücu hakkını kullanmak isteyeceği açıktır. Bu sebeple, hem Türk, hem de Azerbaycan hukukunda sigortalının halefiyete konu hakları ?korumak? ve ?ihlal etmemek? yükümlülüğünde olduğu kanunda düzenlenmiştir. Sigorta tazminatını aynı veya nakdi şekilde tazmin ederek sigortalısının yerine kaim olan sigortacı, onun hukuki durumuna sahip olduğu için, zarar sorumlusu sigortalıya karşı malik olduğu tüm savunma vasıtalarını hem Türk, hem de Azerbaycan hukukunda sigortacıya karşı da dermeyan edebilecektir.
?To get rich unfairly? for an insurance holder, third side who is responsible for loss by not making them obey punishment for ?to prevent them from getting rid of from responsibility?, in insurance law, regress right based on subrogation is held in Turkish law (TTK article 1301), and at the same time in Azerbaijan law system with apparent adjudication ( AMM article 916, and ASK article 37) ordered by legislator. Notwithstanding, in Azerbaijan Law system, from the point of view of land insurance, insurer?s subrogation has been composed almost same legal decisions in two different acts, and it is not only inappropriate for the legislation method, but also it causes complication in application. Provisions those composing subrogation oriented regress right of insurer?s, (AMM.article.916 ve ASK article.37), that work on behalf of the ?public interest? because of the points as ?prevent to get rich unfairly ? and ?to prevent loss responsible to avoid from responsibility?. Although this result, different from Turkey law, in Azerbaijan law system, there is not anything that compose whether these legal decisions`hold `imperative nature` or not, and at the same time it is not easy to determine it from the text of legal decisions. On the other hand, the spesific and justified text of laws (ASK and AMM) are not announced to public, because of this reason, for determining whether these provisions imperative or not, to reach the original aim of Legislator is not feasible. Although such drawbacks, in Azerbaijan law system provisions, (AMM article 916 and ASK article 37) that compose insurers` subrogation ?because of aim? and ?provision that prevents insurance holders` exploitation? and as a result of this, from the point of view of sides those sign the insurance agreement, it can be defended that system of AMM will be statutory nature. In loss insurances, especially while insuring the benefit upon merchandise, insurer`s regress right based on subrogation is valid without any hesitation, it has been accepted that this rule formerly was not valid for liability insurance in Turkish law system. Notwithstanding, in Turkish law system in terms of liability insurances ?former idea? that expressed ?regress right based on subrogation is not valid? has been given up. In Azerbaijan law system, ?elective liability insurances? has been composed in AMM, in the 923 etc. articles of 3rd paragraph with the headline ?loss insurances? of 50th chapter of AMM with the title ?insurance?. The amount insurances, as classified life and accident insurance, the subrogation rule, both in Turkish and Azerbaijan law system was not accepted. And also, even though it is amount insurance, ?health insurance? works with the rules of loss insurance and in ?health insurance? in terms of medical costs subrogation prohibition rule to be exposed to exception. For insurer to gain subrogation oriented regress right, both Turkish and Azerbaijan law system, there have to be two conditions, and this requirement has been composed by Legislator. Fırst condition is ?insurer`s payment of insurance compensation to loss responsible? and other condition is ?insured has a law suit right to the third side that caused loss?. Notwithstanding, in doctrine and application up to the widely known idea, for existing insurer`s regress right based on subrogation, two conditions that composed in law should be and at the same time, there should be one more requirement: ?between insurer and insured there should be valid legal affair?. It is apparent that, insured`s paying insurance instead of insurer and then insured will want to use his/her regress right towards responsible. Because of this reason, both in Azerbaijan and in Turkish law system, insured`s subrogation related rights arranged by law that they should respond in ?to secure? and ?not to violate?. Insurer that makes compensation ocular and pecuniary and takes the place of insured, then this insurer will possess the insured?s legal status, and and as a result, loss responsible that possess advocacy instruments against insured and will be able to express against to insurer, both in Turkish and Azerbaijan law system.
?To get rich unfairly? for an insurance holder, third side who is responsible for loss by not making them obey punishment for ?to prevent them from getting rid of from responsibility?, in insurance law, regress right based on subrogation is held in Turkish law (TTK article 1301), and at the same time in Azerbaijan law system with apparent adjudication ( AMM article 916, and ASK article 37) ordered by legislator. Notwithstanding, in Azerbaijan Law system, from the point of view of land insurance, insurer?s subrogation has been composed almost same legal decisions in two different acts, and it is not only inappropriate for the legislation method, but also it causes complication in application. Provisions those composing subrogation oriented regress right of insurer?s, (AMM.article.916 ve ASK article.37), that work on behalf of the ?public interest? because of the points as ?prevent to get rich unfairly ? and ?to prevent loss responsible to avoid from responsibility?. Although this result, different from Turkey law, in Azerbaijan law system, there is not anything that compose whether these legal decisions`hold `imperative nature` or not, and at the same time it is not easy to determine it from the text of legal decisions. On the other hand, the spesific and justified text of laws (ASK and AMM) are not announced to public, because of this reason, for determining whether these provisions imperative or not, to reach the original aim of Legislator is not feasible. Although such drawbacks, in Azerbaijan law system provisions, (AMM article 916 and ASK article 37) that compose insurers` subrogation ?because of aim? and ?provision that prevents insurance holders` exploitation? and as a result of this, from the point of view of sides those sign the insurance agreement, it can be defended that system of AMM will be statutory nature. In loss insurances, especially while insuring the benefit upon merchandise, insurer`s regress right based on subrogation is valid without any hesitation, it has been accepted that this rule formerly was not valid for liability insurance in Turkish law system. Notwithstanding, in Turkish law system in terms of liability insurances ?former idea? that expressed ?regress right based on subrogation is not valid? has been given up. In Azerbaijan law system, ?elective liability insurances? has been composed in AMM, in the 923 etc. articles of 3rd paragraph with the headline ?loss insurances? of 50th chapter of AMM with the title ?insurance?. The amount insurances, as classified life and accident insurance, the subrogation rule, both in Turkish and Azerbaijan law system was not accepted. And also, even though it is amount insurance, ?health insurance? works with the rules of loss insurance and in ?health insurance? in terms of medical costs subrogation prohibition rule to be exposed to exception. For insurer to gain subrogation oriented regress right, both Turkish and Azerbaijan law system, there have to be two conditions, and this requirement has been composed by Legislator. Fırst condition is ?insurer`s payment of insurance compensation to loss responsible? and other condition is ?insured has a law suit right to the third side that caused loss?. Notwithstanding, in doctrine and application up to the widely known idea, for existing insurer`s regress right based on subrogation, two conditions that composed in law should be and at the same time, there should be one more requirement: ?between insurer and insured there should be valid legal affair?. It is apparent that, insured`s paying insurance instead of insurer and then insured will want to use his/her regress right towards responsible. Because of this reason, both in Azerbaijan and in Turkish law system, insured`s subrogation related rights arranged by law that they should respond in ?to secure? and ?not to violate?. Insurer that makes compensation ocular and pecuniary and takes the place of insured, then this insurer will possess the insured?s legal status, and and as a result, loss responsible that possess advocacy instruments against insured and will be able to express against to insurer, both in Turkish and Azerbaijan law system.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Sigortacı, Rücu hakkı, Regress right, Insurer, Türk hukuku, Turkish law, Azerbaycan hukuku, Azerbaijan law
Kaynak
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
Sayı
Künye
Yolçiyev, M. (2008). Türk Hukukuyla mukayeseli olarak Azerbaycan Hukukunda sigortacının rücu hakkı. Selçuk Üniversitesi, Yayımlanmış doktora tezi, Konya.