The Scape and Limits of the Right to Sport in Turkish Law

Abstract

Since the end of the nineteenth century, there has been debate in many countries whether a reform of the regulations on interrogation is necessary. These debates have been developed around the idea of accepting an interrogation instead of the “oath” institution that is within the legal system. Some national legal systems (e.g. Austria and Switzerland) accepted this idea and introduced interrogation as admissible evidence in the civil justice. On the other hand, some other nations (e.g. Germany) took a more conservative attitude in this matter and accepted the interrogation as “auxiliary evidence”. The Turkish law-maker set forth the evidence in the Fourth Section of Code of Civil Procedure and decided not to include interrogation as evidence. Therefore, in Turkish Law, interrogation is in general a tool for obtaining evidence and eliminating uncertainties about cases. The main purpose of this study is to examine the evidence value of interrogation in Civil Procedure Law. Comparative law research will be used as the main data collection method and the position of Turkish Law will be determined.