UNLAWFUL EVIDENCE IN A CIVIL CASE

CONSTITUTION

Article 36 – Everyone has the right to a fair trial with a claim and defense as a plaintiff or defendant before the judicial authorities, using legitimate means and means.

Article 38- (annex 3/10/2001-4709/15 Art.)

Findings obtained in violation of the law cannot be accepted as evidence. No court can refrain from considering the case within its mandate and authority.

Unlawful evidence is the fact that the parties in civil and criminal proceedings obtain the evidence that they will submit in a manner that is contrary to the Constitution, laws, fundamental rights and freedoms, and submit the evidence they have obtained in this way to the court. Evidence deemed to be contrary to the law cannot be based on a judgment.

In Article 189/2, HMK has introduced a regulation on unlawful evidence as ‘it cannot be taken into account in the proof of the case’. This issue has also been explained in the justification of the law.

The issue of unlawful evidence is regulated in the Constitution, while it is not regulated in civil proceedings. The discussion of unlawful evidence in criminal proceedings began later than the discussions in civil proceedings. In civil and criminal proceedings, anyone can prove their claim, but they must do so on legal evidence.

You can reach our other articles, sample decisions and petitions by clicking here