AT HUKUKUNA AYKIRI HUKUKİ TASARRUFLARIN İPTALİNDE KİŞİLERİN ROLÜ

Abstract

AT kurumlarının tasarruflarının Antlaşmalara uygunluğu, AT Antlaşması 230. maddesinde düzenlenen doğrudan iptal davası ile denetlenmektedir. Bu madde kapsamında kişilerin sadece maddi anlamda kararlar aleyhine, ‘bireysel ve doğrudan ilgili’ olma koşulu ile iptal davası açabilmeleri öngörülmüştür. ATAD’ın bu koşulları çok dar yorumlamış olması, kişilerin iptal başvurularının kabulünü oldukça zorlaştırmıştır. Özellikle Topluluk tüzükleri aleyhine kişilerin iptal davası açması neredeyse olanaksızdır. Doğrudan iptal davasına alternatif olarak gösterilen ön karar davası ve geçersizlik def’i çerçevesindeki denetim sistemi, doğrudan iptal davası kadar gelişmiş değildir. Oysa, yine ATAD tarafından kabul edilen etkili hukuki koruma prensibi uyarınca, bireylere AT hukuku tarafından tanınan hakların etkili bir şekilde korunması gerekmektedir. Bireysel başvurular konusundaki ATAD içtihadı, etkili hukuki koruma prensibi ile çelişmektedir. Bu makalede, öncelikle doğrudan iptal davası genel olarak incelenmiş, daha sonra kişilerin iptal davası açma hakkı konusundaki ATAD içtihadı ele alınmıştır. Ortaya çıkan tablonun etkili hukuki koruma prensibine uygunluğu tartışılmış ve mevcut sistemin düzeltilmesine ilişkin çözüm önerileri ortaya konmuştur

Keywords

• İptal davası, bireysel başvuru, etkili hukuki koruma, AT hukuku, bireysel ve doğrudan ilgi

The Role of Individuals in the Annulment of Acts of Institutions Against Community Law

Abstract

The legality of the acts of Community institutions examined through annulment action regulated under article 230 EC. The standing of individuals in actions for annulment are only limited for true decisions with the condition of direct and individual concern. The restrictive interpretation of direct and individual concern by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) makes it very difficult for individuals to have direct access to Community courts. It is almost impossible for individuals to challenge regulations before ECJ. The indirect challenge possible under article 234 EC (preliminary ruling) and 241 EC (plea of illegality) is not as effective and comprehensive as direct actions. However, the principle of effective judicial protection requires national and Community courts to guarantee protection of rights of individuals under Community law. The restrictive approach of the ECJ on locus standi of individuals is against the principle of effective judicial protection. This article starts with examining action for annulment proceeding in general and then, focuses on the decisions of Community courts regarding standing of private applicants. The approach of Community courts is evaluated in the light of effective judicial protection and solutions are suggested to overcome the gap in judicial protection

Keywords

• Action for annulment, standing of private applicants, effective judicial protection, direct and individual concern

References

1. ACCETTO, Matej/ZLEPTING, Stefan: “The Principle of Effectiveness: Rethinking its Role in Community Law”, European Public Law, Vol. 11, Issue 3, 2005, s. 375-404.
2. ARAT, Tuğrul: Avrupa Toplulukları Adalet Divanı, Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Avrupa Topluluğu Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Araştırma Dizisi, Yayın No: 3, Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1989.
3. ARNULL, Anthony: The European Union and its Court of Justice, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
4. ARNULL: “Private Applicants and the Action for Annulment since Codorniu”, Common Market Law Review, Vol. 38, 2001, s. 7-52.
5. BIERNAT, Ewa: “The Locus Standi of Private Applicants under article 230 (4) EC and the Principle of Judicial Protection in the European Community”, Jean Monnet Working Paper Series, No. 12/03, 2003, s. 1-66.
6. COSTA, Olivier: “The European Court of Justice and Democratic Control in the European Union”, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 10, No. 5, 2003, s. 740-761.
7. CRAIG, Paul: “Standing, Rights, and the Structure of Legal Argument”, European Public Law, Vol. 9, Issue 4, 2003, s. 493-508.
8. GINTER, Carri: “Access to Justice in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg”, European Journal of Law Reform, Vol.4, No.3, 2002, s. 381- 445.

9. GORMLEY, Laurence: “Public Interest Litigation in Community Law”, European Public Law, Vol. 7, Issue 1, 2001, s. 51-62.
10. GROUSSOT, Xavier: “The EC System of Legal Remedies and Effective Judicial Protection: Does the System Really Need Reform”, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2003, s. 221-248.
11. COSTA, 2003, s. 748.
12. HARTLEY, T.C.: The Foundations of European Community Law, New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
13. KAPTEYN, P.J.G./VAN THEMAT, P. VerLoren: Introduction to the Law of the European Communities, Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 1998.
14. KOMBOS, Constantinos: “The Recent Case Law on Locus Standi of Private Applicants under Art. 230(4) EC: A Missed Opportunity or a Velvet Revolution?”, European Integration Online Papers (EIOP), Vol. 9, No. 17, 2005, s.1-22.
15. SCHERMERS, Henry/WAELBROECK, Denis: Judicial Protection in the European Communities, Netherlands: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1987.
16. SCHWARZE, Jürgen: “The Legal Protection of the Individual against Regulations in European Union Law”, European Public Law, Vol. 10, Issue 2, 2004, s. 285-303.
17. SINANIOTIS, Dimitrios: “The Plea of Illegality in EC Law”, European Public Law, Vol. 7, Issue 1, 2001, s. 103-125.
18. VAN DER BROEK, Naboth: “A Long Hot Summer for Individual Concern? The European Court’s Recent Case Law on Direct Actions by Private Parties...and a Plea for Foreign Affairs Exception”, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2003, s. 61-79.