Avrupa Birliği üyeliği öncesindeki uluslararası anlaşmalar: Üye devletler ve aday devletlere yönelik bir inceleme

Yıl 2015, Cilt: 64 Sayı: 4, 1189 - 1232, 01.12.2015

Emriye Özlem Şeker

https://doi.org/10.1501/Hukfak_0000001802

Öz

Avrupa Birliği (“AB”) üyeliği öncesindeki uluslararası anlaşmalar, AB hukuku içerisinde özel bir konuma sahiptir. Bununla ilgili olarak, AB’nin İşleyişi Hakkında Antlaşma (“ABİHA”) m. 351, üye devletlerin uluslararası hukuk ve AB hukuku yükümlülükleri arasındaki ilişkileri düzenlemektedir. Madde, üye devletlerin AB hukuku ile uyumsuz olan ve üye oldukları tarih öncesinde akdettikleri uluslararası anlaşmalardan kaynaklanan yükümlülüklerinin üyelikten etkilenmeyeceğini; fakat bu uyumsuzlukların çözülmesi gerektiğini düzenlemektedir. Bu çalışma ile ABİHA m. 351, AB üyesi devletler üzerindeki etkileri kadar, aday devletler ve dolayısıyla Türkiye üstündeki yansımaları yönüyle de incelemektedir. Bu çerçevede; ABİHA m. 351 kapsamındaki uluslararası anlaşmalara öncelik tanınmasının ayrıntılı koşul ve yükümlülüklere tabi olduğu, 2004 sonrasında AB’ye katılan devletlerin bu maddeye dayanma olasılığının zorlaştığı ve bu zorlaşma eğilimi doğrultusunda aday devlet olarak Türkiye’nin üyelik müzakeresi süresi içinde bu kapsamdaki uluslararası anlaşmalarını gözden geçirmesinin ileride doğabilecek hukuki ihtilafları en aza indirebileceği sonuçlarına varılmıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

ABİHA m. 351, üyelik öncesi uluslararası anlaşmalar, çatışma hükmü, üye devletler, aday devletler

International Agreements Preceding European Union Membership: A Review of Them with regard to Member States and Candidate Countries

Öz

Pre-accession international agreements of the Member States of the European Union (“EU”) have a special status within the EU law. Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) art. 351 regulates the relations between the Member States’ obligations originating from international law and EU law. According to this provision Member States’ obligations arising from international agreements concluded before their accession to the EU shall not be affected by the provisions of the Treaties; however the incompatibilities between these agreements and the EU law shall be eliminated. This paper aims to analyze the impacts of TFEU art. 351 on Member States, along with its reflections on candidate countries and accordingly on Turkey. Conclusions of this paper are the priority given to international agreements within the scope of TFEU art. 351 is subject to detailed conditions and obligations, it is getting difficult for Member States acceding to the EU after 2004 to rely on this priority and in line with this tendency Turkey, as a candidate country, through revising its international agreements during the accession negotiations, could minimise the possible legal conflicts which may arise in the future

Anahtar Kelimeler

TFEU art. 351, pre-accession international agreements, conflict clause, member states, candidate countries

Kaynakça

• BOOREN B. V., WESSEL R. A.; EU External Relations Law-Text, Cases and Materials; Cambridge University Press, 2014.
• CRAIG P./ DE BURCA G.: EU Law-Text, Cases, and Materials, Fifth Edition, Oxford University Press, 2011.
• EECHOUT P.: External Relations of the European Union-Legal and Constitutional Foundations, Oxford EC Law Library, 2005.
• DÖRR O./ SCHMALENBACH K. (eds.): Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties - A Commentary, Springer 2012.
• HOLDGAARD R.: External Relations Law of the European Community, Wolters Kluwer, 2008.
• KACZOROWSKA A.: European Union Law, Routledge, 2011.
• KLABBERS J.: Treaty Conflict and the European Union, Cambridge University Press, 2009.
• KOUTRAKOS P.: EU International Relations Law, Hart Publishing, 2006.
• ROSAS A. / ARMATI L.: EU Constitutional Law-An Introduction, Hart Publishing, 2010.
• VILLIGER M.E.: Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009.
• Avrupa Birliği Sürecinde Yargı ve Temel Haklar Faslı: Avukatlar için Yargı ve Temel Haklar Projesi, T.C. Avrupa Birliği Bakanlığı, Nisan 2014.
• AKGÜL AÇIKMEŞE S.: “Avrupa Birliği’nde Genişleme”, AKÇAY B./ GÖÇMEN İ. (eds.) Avrupa Birliği: Tarihçe, Teoriler, Kurumlar ve Politikalar, 2d ed, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2014.
• BAYKAL S./GÖÇMEN İ.: “Avrupa Birliği Hukukunun Kaynakları Bakımından Normlar Hiyerarşisi”, Prof. Dr. Erdal Onar’a Armağan, Ankara 2013.
• BAYKAL S.: “AB Hukukunun Temel İlkeleri Çerçevesinde AB’ye Katılım ve Türkiye’nin Müzakere Çerçeve Belgesinde Yer Alan Esaslar”, Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi, Cilt 12, Sayı 1, 2013.
• CALLIES C./ RUFFERT M.: EUV-AEUV Kommentar, 4. Auflage, Verlag C.H. Beck, München 2012, Art. 351 Rn 1-25.
• CASOLARI F.: “The Principle of Loyal Cooperation: A ‘Master Key’ for EU External Representation?”, BLOCKMANS S./ WESSELS R. A. (eds.): Principles and Practices of EU External Representation, CLEER Working Papers No. 5, 2012.
• CREMONA M.: “Disconnection Clauses in EU Law and Practice”, HILLION C./KOUTRAKOS P. (eds.), Mixed Agreements Revisited-The EU and its Member States in the World, Hart Publishing, 2010.
• CREMONA M.: “Defending the Community Interest: the Duties of Cooperation and Compliance”, CREMONA M./ DE WITTE B. (eds.): EU Foreign Relations Law-Constitutional Fundamentals, Hart Publishing, 2008.
• DENZA E.: “Bilateral Investment Treaties and EU Rules on Free Transfer: Comment on Commission v Austria, Commission v Sweden and Commission v. Finland”, European Law Review 35(2), 2010.
• ECKES C.: “Protecting Supremacy from External Influences: A Precondition for a European Constitutional Legal Order?”, European Law Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2, March 2012.
• GHOURI A. A.: “Resolving Incompatibilities of Bilateral Investment Treaties of the EU Member States with the EC Treaty: Individual and Collective Options”, European Law Journal, Vol. 16, No. 6, November 2010.
• GINTER C. et al.: “Loyalty to the EU and the Duty to Revise Pre-Accession International Agreements”, Juridica International XX/2013.
• GRIMES J.M.: “Conflicts Between EC Law and International Treaty Obligations: A Case Study of the German Telecommunications Dispute”, Harvard Internatioal Law Journal Volume 35 , Number 2, Spring 1994.
• GÖZLER K.: “Uluslararası Andlaşmaları Akdetme ve Onaylama Yetkisi-Bir Karşılaştırmalı Anayasa Hukuku İncelemesi”, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi 56-2.
• KOKOTT J.: “AEUV Art. 351 (ex-Art..307 EGV)”, STEINZ R.: EUV/AEUV: Vertrag über die Europäische Union und Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union, 2. Auflage, Verlag C.H. Beck, München 2012, AEUV Art. 351 Rn.1-32.
• KLABBERS J.: “Moribund on the fourth of July? The Court of Justice on prior agreement of the Member States”, European Law Review 26(2), 2001.
• LAVRANOS N.: “AEUV Artikel 351 (ex-Artikel 307 EGV)”, GOEBEN H./ SCHWARZE J./ HATJE A.: Europäisches Unionsrecht, 7. Auflage, 2015, Art. 531 Rn. 1-32.
• LAVRANOS N.: “Protecting European Law from Intenational Law”, European Foreign Affairs Review 15, 2010.
• LAMBERT H.: “The EU Asylum Qualification Directive, its impact on the jurisprudence of the United Kingdom and international law”, International & Comparative Law Quarterly 2006.
• LICKOVA M.: “European Exceptionalism in International Law”, The European Journal of International Law, Vol. 19, no. 3, 2008.
• MANZINI P.: “The Priority of Pre-Existing Treaties of EC Member States within the Framework of International Law”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 12 No. 4, 2001, s. 781-792.
• MAURICIO A.J.: “The Relationship between European Union Law and International Law through the Prism of the Court of Justice’s ETS Judgment: Revisiting Kadi I”, King's Student Law Review, Vol. 1, 2013.
• MORGENSTERN F.: “The Convention on the Law of the Treaties between States and International Organizations”, DINSTEIN Y. (ed.): International Law at a Time of Perplexity, Essays in Honour of Shabtai Rossene Martinus, Martinus Njhoff Publishers, 1988, s. 435-448.
• PETERSMANN E. U.; “Artikel 234”; VON DER GROEBEN H., THIESSING ve EHLERMANN C. D. (eds.): Kommentar zum EWG- Vertrag, 4th ed., 1991.
• POTESTA M.: “Bilateral Investment Treaties and the European Union. Recent Developments in Arbitration and Before the ECJ”, The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 8, 2009.
• ROSAS A.: “The Status in EU Law of International Agreements Concluded by EU Member States”, Fordham International Law Journal, Volume 34, Issue 5, Article 7, 2011.
• TERHECHTE J. P.: “Art. 351 TFEU, the Principle of Loyalty and the Future Role of the Member States' Bilateral Investment Treaties”, European Yearbook for International Economic Law, January 2010.
• Case 26/62 NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration, ECR 1963 I-1.
• Case 6/64 Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L, ECR 1964 I–585.
• Joined Cases 3, 4 ve 6/76 Cornelis Kramer and Others, ECR 1976 I-1279.
• Case C-812/79, Attorney General v. Burgoa , ECR 1980 I-2802.
• Case 294/83 Parti écologiste "Les Verts" v. European Parliament, ECR 1986 I–1339.
• Case C-286/86, Ministère public v Gérard Deserbais, ECR 1988 I-4907.
• Case C-286/90, Anklagemyndigheden v. Poulsen and Diva Navigation Corp. ECR 1992 I-6019, s. 6052.
• Opinion 1/91, ECR 1991 I-6079.
• Case C-158/91, Ministère public et Direction du travail et de l'emploi v. Jean-Claude Levy, ECR 1993 I- 4287.
• Case C-324/93, The Queen and Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Evans Medical Ltd and Macfarlan Smith Ltd, ECR 1995 I-563.
• Case C-473/93, Commission v. Luxembourg, ECR 1996 I-3207.
• Case C-124/95, The Queen v. H. M. Treasury, ECR 1997 I-81.
• Case C-62/98, Commission v Portugal, ECR 2000 I-5171.
• Case C-84/98, Commission v. Portugal, ECR 2000 I-5215.
• Case C-170/98, Commission v. Belgium, ECR 1999 I-5493.
• Case C-466/98, Commission v. United Kingdom, ECR 2002 I-9427.
• Case C-471/98, Commission v. Belgium, ECR 2002, I-9681.
• Case C-467/98, Commission v. Denmark, ECR 2002, I-9519.
• Case C-468/98, Commission v. Sweden, ECR 2002, I-9575.
• Case C- 469/98, Commission v. Finland, ECR 2002, I-9627.
• Case C-472/98, Commission v. Luxembourg, ECR 2002, I-9741.
• Case C-475/98, Commission v. Austria, ECR 2002, I-9797.
• Case C-476/98, Commission v. Federal Republic of Germany, ECR 2002, I- 9855.
• Case C-216/01 Budéjovický Budvar, národní podnik v Rudolf Ammersin GmbH ECR 2003 I-13617.
• Cases Joined Cases C-402, 415/05, Kadi & Al Barakaat Int’l Found. v. Council (“Kadi”), ECR 2008 I-65-351.
• Cases Joined Cases C-402, 415/05, Hukuk Sözcüsü Maduro’nun Görüşü, ECR 2008 I-6351.
• Case C-249/06, Commission v. Sweden, ECR 2009 I-1335.
• Case C-205/06, Commission v. Austria, ECR 2009 I-1301.
• C-205/06 ve Case C-249/06, Hukuk Sözcüsü Maduro’nun 10 Temmuz 2008 tarihli Görüşü.
• Case C-118/07, Commission v. Finland, ECR 2009 I-10889.
• Case C-366/10, Air Transport Association of America and Others Hukuk Sözcüsü Görüşü, ECR-2011 I-13755.