AVRUPA İNSAN HAKLARI MAHKEMESİNDE REFORM: 15 VE 16 No.lu EK PROTOKOLLER

Year 2014, Volume: 18 Issue: 3, 607 - 640, 01.07.2014

SERHAT Altınkök

Abstract

Bu makalede, Mahkemenin etkinliğinin artırılması sürecinde yeni bir aşama olan 15 ve 16 numaralı ek Protokollerle getirilen yenilikler incelenmiştir. Ek 15 no.lu ek Protokolle, ikincillik ilkesi Sözleşme’nin önsözüne yazılmış, Yüksek Sözleşmeci Tarafl arın ulusal mahkemelerinin takdir marjı konusuna vurgu yapılmış, Mahkemeye başvuru süresi kısaltılmış, önemli zararın bulunması kriteri getirilmiş, yargıçların görev süreleri yeniden düzenlenmiş ve Büyük Daire lehine görevden el çekme hususları düzenlenmiştir. Sözleşme’ye ek 16 No.lu Protokol ile getirilen istişari görüş verme yetkisi ile de Mahkeme ile ulusal kurumlar arasındaki etkileşimin artırılması ve böylece Sözleşme’nin ikincillik ilkesi çerçevesinde uygulanmasının pekiştirilmesi amaçlanmıştır.

Keywords

Sözleşme’ye Ek 15 ve 16. Protokoller, İkincillik İlkesi, Takdir Marjı, Önemli Zarar, İstişari Görüş.

THE REFORM of the EUROPEAN COURT of HUMAN RIGHTS: ADDITIONAL PROTOCOLS no. 15 and 16

Abstract

In this article, the innovations brought by the additional Protocols No. 15 and 16 that new stages in the process of enhancing the effectiveness of the Court were examined. In the additional Protocol No. 15 of the Convention, the principle of subsidiarity was written into the preamble of the Convention, emphasizing the margin of appreciation of the High Contracting Parties national courts’, time limit for submitting application was shortened, brought signifi cant disadvantage criterion, the term of the judges rearranged and relinquishment of jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber issues are regulated. In additional Protocol No. 16 of the Convention, advisory opinions to bring empowerment to increase the interaction between national institutions and the Court thus reinforce the implementation of the Convention with the framework of subsidiarity principle was intended.

Keywords

Additional Protocols no. 15 and 16 of the Convention, Subsidiary Criteria, Margin of Appreciation, Signifi cant Disadvantage, Advisory Opinion.

References

• Altınkök, Serhat. “The New Admissibility Criterion Stated in the Article 35 § 3 (b) of the European Convention of Human Rights: ‘Signifi cant Disadvantage’”, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi [Ankara University the Journal of Faculty of Law], 2013, 62(2), pp. 349-405.
• Committee of Ministers/Council of Europe, Third Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Member States of the Council of Europe (Warsaw, 16-17 May 2005), Action Plan [Action Plan], CM(2005)80 fi nal 17 May 2005.
• Committee of Ministers/Council of Europe, Report of the Group of Wise Persons to the Committee of Ministers, CM(2006)203, 979bis Meeting, 15 November 2006.
• Committee of Ministers/Council of Europe, Resolution CM/Res(2010)26 on the establishment of an Advisory Panel of Experts on Candidates for Election as Judge to the European Court of Human Rights [Advisory Panel], adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 November 2010 at the 1097bis meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
• Committee of Ministers/Council of Europe, 121st Session of the Committee of Ministers (İstanbul, 10-11 May 2011), CM/Del/Dec(2011)1114/1.5.
• Committee of Ministers/Council of Europe, Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers on the selection of candidates for the post of judge at the European Court of Human Rights, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 28 March 2012 at the 1138th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, CM(2012)40fi nalE, 29 March 2012.
• Committee of Ministers/Council of Europe, 122nd Session of the Committee of Ministers (Strasbourg, 23 May 2012).
• Council of Europe, Protocol No. 2 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, conferring upon the European Court of Human Rights competence to give advisory opinions, 6 May 1963.
• Council of Europe, High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights Interlaken Declaration [Interlaken Declaration], 19 February 2010.
• Council of Europe, High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights İzmir Declaration [İzmir Declaration], 26-27 April 2011.
• Council of Europe, High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights Brighton Declaration [Brighton Declaration], 19-20 April 2012.
• Council of Europe, Protocol No. 15 Amending the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, CETS No. 213 [Protocol No. 15], 24 June 2013.
• Council of Europe, Protocol No. 16 Amending the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, CETS No. 214 [Protocol No. 16], 2 October 2013.
• Council of Europe, Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (CETS no. 213) Explanatory Report [Explanatory Report (Protocol No. 15)].
• Council of Europe, Protocol No. 16 amending the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (CETS no. 214) Explanatory Report [Explanatory Report (Protocol No. 16)].
• Directorate General Human Rights and Rule of Law/Council of Europe, Guide to Good Practice in Respect of Domestic Remedies [Guide to Good Practice], adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 18 September 2013.
• European Court of Human Rights, Refl ection Paper on the Proposal to Extend the Court’s Advisory Jurisdiction, 20 February 2012.
• European Court of Human Rights, Preliminary Opinion of the Court in preparation for the Brighton Conference, adopted by the Plenary Court on 20 February 2012.
• European Court of Human Rights, Opinion of the Court on Draft Protocol No. 15 to the European Convention on Human Rights [Opinion of the ECtHR on Protocol No. 15], adopted on 6 February 2013.
• European Court of Human Rights, Opinion of the Court on Draft Protocol No. 16 to the Convention extending its competence to give advisory opinions on the interpretation of the Convention [Opinion of the ECtHR on Protocol No. 16], adopted by the Plenary Court on 6 May 2013.
• European Court of Human Rights, Rules of the Court, Registry of the Court, Practice Directions amended on 29 September 2014.
• Parliamentary Assembly/Council of Europe, Recommendation 1649 (2004)1 Candidates for the European Court of Human Rights, adopted by the Assembly on 30 January 2004 (8th Sitting).
• Parliamentary Assembly/Council of Europe, Recommendation 1646 (2009)1 Candidates for the European Court of Human Rights, adopted by the Assembly on 27 January 2009 (4th Sitting).
• Parliamentary Assembly/Council of Europe, Draft Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Opinion 285 (2013), adopted by the Assembly on 28 June 2013 (27th Sitting).
• Parliamentary Assembly/Council of Europe, Opinion 283 (2013) [Draft Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms].
• Steering Committee on Human Rights (CDDH), Activity Report on guaranteeing the long-term effectiveness of the control system of the European Convention on Human Rights, CDDH(2009)007Addendum I, 30 March 2009.
• Steering Committee on Human Rights (CDDH), Opinion on the issues to be covered at the Interlaken Conference (as prepared by the CDDH at its 69th meeting (24-27 November 2009)) [Opinion on Interlaken], CDDH(2009)019 Addendum I, 1 December 2009.
• Steering Committee on Human Rights (CDDH), CDDH Final Report on measures requiring amendment of the European Convention on Human Rights (74th meeting Strasbourg, 07-10 February 2012) [Final Report], CDDH(2012)R74 Addendum I, 15 February 2012.
• Steering Committee on Human Rights (CDDH), Contribution to the Ministerial conference organised by the United Kingdom Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, 74th meeting Strasbourg, 7-10 February 2012 [Contribution to the Ministerial conference], CDDH(2012)R74 Addendum III, 15 February 2012.
• Steering Committee on Human Rights (CDDH), Drafting Group “A” on the Reform of the Court (GT-GDR-A) [Draft CDDH report on measures taken by the member States to implement relevant parts of the Interlaken and Izmir Declarations], GT-GDR-A(2012)R2 Addendum I, 7 September 2012.
• Steering Committee on Human Rights (CDDH), Drafting Group “A” on the Reform of the Court (GT-GDR-A) [Draft CDDH report containing elements to contribute to the evaluation of the effects of Protocol No. 14 to the Convention and the implementation of the Interlaken and Izmir Declarations on the Court’s situation, GT-GDR-A(2012)R2 Addendum II, 7 September 2012.
• Steering Committee on Human Rights (CDDH), Drafting Group “B” on the Reform of the Court (GT-GDR-B) [Draft Protocol No. 15], GTGDR-B(2012)R1 Addendum, 14 September 2012.
• Steering Committee on Human Rights (CDDH), CDDH report on the review of the functioning of the Advisory Panel of experts on candidates for election as judge to the European Court of Human Rights, CDDH(2013) R79 Addendum II [Candidates for election as judge], 29 November 2013.