Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

İnsan Hakları İhlallerinin Önlenmesinde Pilot Kararların Usuli Açıdan Etkililiği

Year 2021, Volume: 1 Issue: 2, 29 - 56, 07.09.2021

Emre Oğuz Meriç

Abstract

nsan hakları ihlallerinin önlenmesinde pilot karar usulünün etkililiği çalışmanın esasını
oluşturmaktadır. Üç bölümden meydana gelen çalışmanın ilk bölümünde pilot karar usulünün
ortaya çıkışı, unsurları ve amaçları üzerinde durulmuştur. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi
içtihat gelişimi ve içtüzüğe getirilen düzenleme temel alınarak usulün kapsamı belirlenmiştir.
İkinci bölümde öncelikle başvurucuların adalete erişim hakkı değerlendirilmiştir. Pilot karar
usulünün etkililiği azalmadan adalete erişim hakkının sağlanıp sağlanamayacağı tartışılmıştır.
Sonrasında ise usulün başarıya ulaşmasında önemli rol oynayan Avrupa İnsan Hakları
Mahkemesi, Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesi ve taraf devletlerin işlevi irdelenmiştir.
Usulün etkili olmasını sağlamak adına Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi ve Bakanlar
Komitesinin sahip olduğu enstrümanların yeterliliği değerlendirilmiştir. Pilot karar uyarınca
gerekli tedbirlerin alınmasını ve uygulanmasını sağlayacak olan devletlerin tutumu, çeşitli
ihtimallere göre ele alınmıştır. İlk iki bölümde Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi ve Avrupa
İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi içtihatları temel alındıysa da son bölümde Anayasa Mahkemesi
uygulamasına değinilmiştir. Ulusal hukuktaki düzenleme ve Anayasa Mahkemesi uygulaması
esas alınarak pilot karar usulünün etkililiği değerlendirilmiştir.

Keywords

Pilot karar pilot karar usulü etkililik

References

  • Altıparmak, K. (2009). Kopya Davalar ve Pilot Kararlar: Bir Kararda Bin Adaletsizlik?. 50. Yılında Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi: Başarı mı Hayal Kırıklığı mı? içinde (s. 60- 107). Ankara: Ankara Barosu Yayınları.
  • Buyse, A. (2009). The Pilot Judgment Procedure at the European Court of Human Rights: Possibilities and Challenges. Nomiko Vima (The Greek Law Journal), Volume: 57, 1890-1902.
  • Gerards, J. (2012). The Pilot Judgment Procedure Before the European Court of Human Rights as an Instrument for Dialogue. Constitutional Conversations içinde (s. 1-25). Antwerp: Intersentia.
  • Gerards, J. H. Glas, L. R. (2017). Access to Justice in the European Convention on Human Rights System. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Right, Volume: 35(1), 11-30.
  • Glas, L. R. (2019). The European Court of Human Rights Supervising the Execution of Its Judgments. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Volume: 37/3, 228-244. Glas, L. R. (2016). The Functioning of the Pilot Judgment Procedure of the European Court of Human Rights in Practice. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Volume: 34/1, 41-70.
  • Helfer, L. R. (2008). Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: Embeddedness as a Deep Structural Principle of the European Human Rights Regime. The European Journal of International Law, Volume: 19, 125-159.
  • Kanadoğlu, K. (2015). Anayasa Mahkemesi’ne Bireysel Başvuru. İstanbul: On İki Levha Yayıncılık.
  • Karakul, S. (2018). Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin Kendi Kararlarının Yerine Getirilmesindeki Rolü. İstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 5, Sayı:2, 125-156.
  • Karakul, S. (2015). How Effective are National Remedies in Securing International Justice?.
  • C. Sampford, S. Zifcak, D. A. Okur (Yay. Haz.). Rethinking International Law and Justice içinde (s. 81-100). Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Karan, U. (2018) Öğretide ve Uygulamada Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararlarının Bağlayıcılığı ve İcrası: Norm Denetimi ile Bireysel Başvuru Usulünde Verilen Kararlar Özelinde Bir İnceleme. İstanbul: On İki Levha Yayıncılık.
  • Kindt, E. (2018). Giving Up on Individual Justice? The Effect of State Non-execution of a Pilot Judgment on Victims. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Right, 36(3), 173-188.
  • Köküsarı, İ. (2018). Anayasa Mahkemesi’ne Bireysel Başvuru Yolunda İhlal Kararlarının Kesinliği, Bağlayıcılığı ve Etkisi. Erzincan Binali Yıldırım Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: XXII, Sayı: 1-2, 1-55. Leach, P. Hardman, H. Stevenson, S. Blitz, B. (2010). Responding to Systemic Human Rights Violations: An Analysis of 'Pilot Judgments' of the European Court of Human Rights and Their Impact at National Level. Antwerp: Intersentia.
  • Meyer-Ladewig, J. (2007). Discussion Following the Presentation by Luzius Wildhaber. R. Wolfrum, U. Deutsch (Yay. Haz.). The European Court of Human Rights Overwhelmed by Applications: Problems and Possible Solutions içinde (s. 77-92).
  • Heidelberg: Springer. Özbek, N. Kuşçu, D. (2020). Anayasa Mahkemesinin 30.05.2019 Tarihli Pilot Kararı (Y.T. Kararı) İncelemesi ve Sınır Dışı Kararına Karşı Etkili Başvuru Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Cilt: XXIV, Sayı: 3, 3-39.
  • Paraskeva, C. (2003). Human Rights Protection Begins and Ends at Home: The ‘Pilot Judgment Procedure’ Developed by the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Commentary, Volume: 3, 1-16.
  • Sadurski, W. (2009). Partnering with Strasbourg: Constitutionalisation of the European Court of Human Rights, the Accession of Central and East European States to the Council of Europe, and the Idea of Pilot Judgments. Human Rights Law Review, Volume: 9, Issue: 3, 397-453
  • Spielmann, D. (2014). Keynote Address. Seibert-Fohr, M. E. Villiger (Yay. Haz.). Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights - Effects and Implementation içinde (s. 25- 32). Baden: Nomos
  • Şirin, T. (2013). Türkiye’de Anayasa Şikâyeti (Bireysel Başvuru). İstanbul: On İki Levha
  • Şirin, T. (2018). Bireysel Başvuru (Anayasa Şikâyeti) Usul Hukuku. Ankara: Avrupa Konseyi Ankara Program Ofisi
  • Wildhaber, L. (2007). Pilot Judgments in Cases of Structural or Systemic Problems on the National Level. R. Wolfrum, U. Deutsch (Yay. Haz.). The European Court of Human Rights Overwhelmed by Applications: Problems and Possible Solutions içinde (s. 69- 75). Heidelberg: Springer.
  • ELEKTRONİK KAYNAKLAR Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending the control system of the Convention. (2004) Council of Europe Treaty Series, No. 194, rm.coe.int adresinden 28.4.2021 tarihinde erişildi.
  • Factsheet – Pilot judgments. (2020). www.echr.coe.int adresinden 27.4.2021 tarihinde erişildi. Resolution of the Committee of Ministers on Judgments Revealing an Underlying Systemic Problem. (2004). Res(2004)3. www.coe.int adresinden 27.4.2021 tarihinde erişildi.
  • The Pilot-Judgment Procedure: Information note issued by the Registrar. (2009). www.echr.coe.int adresinden 28.4.2021 tarihinde erişildi.
  • AİHM VAKA LİSTESİ Ališić and others v. Bosnia And Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia, App. No. 60642/08, Judgement of 16 July 2014
  • Ananyev and others v. Russia, App. Nos. 42525/07 60800/08, Judgement of 10 January 2012
  • Atanasov and Apostotolov v. Bulgaria, App. Nos. 65540/16 22368/17, Desicion of inadmissability of 27 June 2017
  • Athanasiou and others v. Greece, App. No. 50973/08, Judgement of 21 December 2010
  • Broniowski v. Poland, App. No. 31443/96, Judgement of 22 June 2004
  • Broniowski v. Poland, App. No. 31443/96, (Friendly settlement) Judgement of 28 September 2005
  • Burdov. Russia (No. 2), App. No. 33509/04, Judgement of 15 January 2009
  • Burmych and others v. Ukraine, App. No. 46852/13, Judgement (Striking out) of 12 October 2017
  • Dimitrov and Hamanov v. Bulgaria, App. Nos. 48059/06 2708/09, Judgement of 10 May 2011
  • E.G. against Poland, App. No. 50425/99, Decision Pilot-Judgment Procedure of 23 September 2008
  • Gazsó v. Hungary, App. No. 48322/12, Judgement of 16 July 2015
  • Greens and M.T. v. The United Kingdom, App. Nos. 60041/08 60054/08, Judgement of 23 November 2010
  • Hutten-Czapska v. Poland, App. No. 35014/94, Judgement of 19 June 2006
  • Hutten-Czapska v. Poland, App. No. 35014/94, (Friendly settlement) Judgement of 28 April 2008
  • Kurić and others v. Slovenia, App. No. 26828/06, Judgement of 26 June 2012
  • Lukenda v. Slovenia App. No. 23032/02, Judgement of 6 October 2005
  • Maria Atanasiu and others v. Romania, App. Nos. 30767/05 33800/06, Judgement of 12 October 2010
  • Neshkov and others v. Bulgaria, App. Nos. 36925/10, 21487/12, 72893/12, 73196/12, 77718/12 9717/13, Judgement of 27 January 2015
  • Olaru and others v. Moldova, App. Nos. 476/07, 22539/05, 17911/08 13136/07, Judgement of 28 July 2009
  • Rumpf v. Germany, App. No. 46344/06, Judgement of 2 September 2010
  • Suljagić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, App. No. 27912/02, Judgement of 3 November 2009
  • Valcheva and Abrashev v. Bulgaria, App. Nos. 6194/11 34887/11, Desicion of inadmissability of 18 June 2013
  • Varga and others v. Hungary, App Nos. 14097/12, 45135/12, 73712/12, 34001/13, 44055/13, 64586/13, Judgement of 10 March 2015, para. 111
  • Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey App. No. 46347/99, Judgement of 22 December 2005
  • Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, App. No. 40450/04, Judgement of 15 October 2009
  • ANAYASA MAHKEMESİ VAKA LİSTESİ
  • A.A.K. ve Diğerleri Başvurusu, Baş. No. 2016/43088, 3/12/2020
  • Bilal Abdulsattar El Raviye ve Diğerleri Başvurusu, Baş. No. 2018/27603, 15/5/2020
  • Y.T. Başvurusu, Baş. No. 2016/22418, 30/5/2019

Year 2021, Volume: 1 Issue: 2, 29 - 56, 07.09.2021

Emre Oğuz Meriç

Abstract

References

  • Altıparmak, K. (2009). Kopya Davalar ve Pilot Kararlar: Bir Kararda Bin Adaletsizlik?. 50. Yılında Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi: Başarı mı Hayal Kırıklığı mı? içinde (s. 60- 107). Ankara: Ankara Barosu Yayınları.
  • Buyse, A. (2009). The Pilot Judgment Procedure at the European Court of Human Rights: Possibilities and Challenges. Nomiko Vima (The Greek Law Journal), Volume: 57, 1890-1902.
  • Gerards, J. (2012). The Pilot Judgment Procedure Before the European Court of Human Rights as an Instrument for Dialogue. Constitutional Conversations içinde (s. 1-25). Antwerp: Intersentia.
  • Gerards, J. H. Glas, L. R. (2017). Access to Justice in the European Convention on Human Rights System. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Right, Volume: 35(1), 11-30.
  • Glas, L. R. (2019). The European Court of Human Rights Supervising the Execution of Its Judgments. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Volume: 37/3, 228-244. Glas, L. R. (2016). The Functioning of the Pilot Judgment Procedure of the European Court of Human Rights in Practice. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Volume: 34/1, 41-70.
  • Helfer, L. R. (2008). Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: Embeddedness as a Deep Structural Principle of the European Human Rights Regime. The European Journal of International Law, Volume: 19, 125-159.
  • Kanadoğlu, K. (2015). Anayasa Mahkemesi’ne Bireysel Başvuru. İstanbul: On İki Levha Yayıncılık.
  • Karakul, S. (2018). Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin Kendi Kararlarının Yerine Getirilmesindeki Rolü. İstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 5, Sayı:2, 125-156.
  • Karakul, S. (2015). How Effective are National Remedies in Securing International Justice?.
  • C. Sampford, S. Zifcak, D. A. Okur (Yay. Haz.). Rethinking International Law and Justice içinde (s. 81-100). Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Karan, U. (2018) Öğretide ve Uygulamada Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararlarının Bağlayıcılığı ve İcrası: Norm Denetimi ile Bireysel Başvuru Usulünde Verilen Kararlar Özelinde Bir İnceleme. İstanbul: On İki Levha Yayıncılık.
  • Kindt, E. (2018). Giving Up on Individual Justice? The Effect of State Non-execution of a Pilot Judgment on Victims. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Right, 36(3), 173-188.
  • Köküsarı, İ. (2018). Anayasa Mahkemesi’ne Bireysel Başvuru Yolunda İhlal Kararlarının Kesinliği, Bağlayıcılığı ve Etkisi. Erzincan Binali Yıldırım Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: XXII, Sayı: 1-2, 1-55. Leach, P. Hardman, H. Stevenson, S. Blitz, B. (2010). Responding to Systemic Human Rights Violations: An Analysis of 'Pilot Judgments' of the European Court of Human Rights and Their Impact at National Level. Antwerp: Intersentia.
  • Meyer-Ladewig, J. (2007). Discussion Following the Presentation by Luzius Wildhaber. R. Wolfrum, U. Deutsch (Yay. Haz.). The European Court of Human Rights Overwhelmed by Applications: Problems and Possible Solutions içinde (s. 77-92).
  • Heidelberg: Springer. Özbek, N. Kuşçu, D. (2020). Anayasa Mahkemesinin 30.05.2019 Tarihli Pilot Kararı (Y.T. Kararı) İncelemesi ve Sınır Dışı Kararına Karşı Etkili Başvuru Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Cilt: XXIV, Sayı: 3, 3-39.
  • Paraskeva, C. (2003). Human Rights Protection Begins and Ends at Home: The ‘Pilot Judgment Procedure’ Developed by the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Commentary, Volume: 3, 1-16.
  • Sadurski, W. (2009). Partnering with Strasbourg: Constitutionalisation of the European Court of Human Rights, the Accession of Central and East European States to the Council of Europe, and the Idea of Pilot Judgments. Human Rights Law Review, Volume: 9, Issue: 3, 397-453
  • Spielmann, D. (2014). Keynote Address. Seibert-Fohr, M. E. Villiger (Yay. Haz.). Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights - Effects and Implementation içinde (s. 25- 32). Baden: Nomos
  • Şirin, T. (2013). Türkiye’de Anayasa Şikâyeti (Bireysel Başvuru). İstanbul: On İki Levha
  • Şirin, T. (2018). Bireysel Başvuru (Anayasa Şikâyeti) Usul Hukuku. Ankara: Avrupa Konseyi Ankara Program Ofisi
  • Wildhaber, L. (2007). Pilot Judgments in Cases of Structural or Systemic Problems on the National Level. R. Wolfrum, U. Deutsch (Yay. Haz.). The European Court of Human Rights Overwhelmed by Applications: Problems and Possible Solutions içinde (s. 69- 75). Heidelberg: Springer.
  • ELEKTRONİK KAYNAKLAR Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending the control system of the Convention. (2004) Council of Europe Treaty Series, No. 194, rm.coe.int adresinden 28.4.2021 tarihinde erişildi.
  • Factsheet – Pilot judgments. (2020). www.echr.coe.int adresinden 27.4.2021 tarihinde erişildi. Resolution of the Committee of Ministers on Judgments Revealing an Underlying Systemic Problem. (2004). Res(2004)3. www.coe.int adresinden 27.4.2021 tarihinde erişildi.
  • The Pilot-Judgment Procedure: Information note issued by the Registrar. (2009). www.echr.coe.int adresinden 28.4.2021 tarihinde erişildi.
  • AİHM VAKA LİSTESİ Ališić and others v. Bosnia And Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia, App. No. 60642/08, Judgement of 16 July 2014
  • Ananyev and others v. Russia, App. Nos. 42525/07 60800/08, Judgement of 10 January 2012
  • Atanasov and Apostotolov v. Bulgaria, App. Nos. 65540/16 22368/17, Desicion of inadmissability of 27 June 2017
  • Athanasiou and others v. Greece, App. No. 50973/08, Judgement of 21 December 2010
  • Broniowski v. Poland, App. No. 31443/96, Judgement of 22 June 2004
  • Broniowski v. Poland, App. No. 31443/96, (Friendly settlement) Judgement of 28 September 2005
  • Burdov. Russia (No. 2), App. No. 33509/04, Judgement of 15 January 2009
  • Burmych and others v. Ukraine, App. No. 46852/13, Judgement (Striking out) of 12 October 2017
  • Dimitrov and Hamanov v. Bulgaria, App. Nos. 48059/06 2708/09, Judgement of 10 May 2011
  • E.G. against Poland, App. No. 50425/99, Decision Pilot-Judgment Procedure of 23 September 2008
  • Gazsó v. Hungary, App. No. 48322/12, Judgement of 16 July 2015
  • Greens and M.T. v. The United Kingdom, App. Nos. 60041/08 60054/08, Judgement of 23 November 2010
  • Hutten-Czapska v. Poland, App. No. 35014/94, Judgement of 19 June 2006
  • Hutten-Czapska v. Poland, App. No. 35014/94, (Friendly settlement) Judgement of 28 April 2008
  • Kurić and others v. Slovenia, App. No. 26828/06, Judgement of 26 June 2012
  • Lukenda v. Slovenia App. No. 23032/02, Judgement of 6 October 2005
  • Maria Atanasiu and others v. Romania, App. Nos. 30767/05 33800/06, Judgement of 12 October 2010
  • Neshkov and others v. Bulgaria, App. Nos. 36925/10, 21487/12, 72893/12, 73196/12, 77718/12 9717/13, Judgement of 27 January 2015
  • Olaru and others v. Moldova, App. Nos. 476/07, 22539/05, 17911/08 13136/07, Judgement of 28 July 2009
  • Rumpf v. Germany, App. No. 46344/06, Judgement of 2 September 2010
  • Suljagić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, App. No. 27912/02, Judgement of 3 November 2009
  • Valcheva and Abrashev v. Bulgaria, App. Nos. 6194/11 34887/11, Desicion of inadmissability of 18 June 2013
  • Varga and others v. Hungary, App Nos. 14097/12, 45135/12, 73712/12, 34001/13, 44055/13, 64586/13, Judgement of 10 March 2015, para. 111
  • Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey App. No. 46347/99, Judgement of 22 December 2005
  • Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, App. No. 40450/04, Judgement of 15 October 2009
  • ANAYASA MAHKEMESİ VAKA LİSTESİ
  • A.A.K. ve Diğerleri Başvurusu, Baş. No. 2016/43088, 3/12/2020
  • Bilal Abdulsattar El Raviye ve Diğerleri Başvurusu, Baş. No. 2018/27603, 15/5/2020
  • Y.T. Başvurusu, Baş. No. 2016/22418, 30/5/2019
There are 52 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Law in Context
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Emre Oğuz Meriç This is me

Publication Date September 7, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021 Volume: 1 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Meriç, E. O. (2021). İnsan Hakları İhlallerinin Önlenmesinde Pilot Kararların Usuli Açıdan Etkililiği. Dicle Akademi Dergisi, 1(2), 29-56.

26676                                                                                                          26799                                                                                                   26798

Dicle Academy Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.