PARTICULAR SOCIAL GROUP CRITERIA IN REFUGEE LAW AND THE EU COURT OF JUSTICE’S DECISION ON WS BULGARIA IN THE CONTEXT OF ‘DOMESTIC VIOLENCE’ (C-621/21, WS v. Intervyuirasht organ na DAB pri MS)

Öz

1951 UN Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees provides a simple definition of refugee in Article 1A, and there is no single application for the concept of ‘belonging to a particular social group’ listed in the Convention, and different court decisions are encountered. Since the states where the asylum application is made use different methods to determine the criterion of ‘particular group’, this creates significant obstacles for potential victims of domestic violence and murder to benefit from international protection. As a result, there is a lack of jurisprudence that negatively affects the adjudication of asylum applications and leads to unfair differences. These murders have been seen as a private or family situation in many cases, usually including the cultural relativist approach, and within the existing definitions and the interpretation of the 1951 Geneva Convention, international protection requests have been rejected on the grounds that these atrocities are caused by cultural differences in the “Third World” countries where they occur, and that they are a problem of domestic law. The disproportionate focus on the ‘specific’ motives of the perpetrators has also obscured the link between the serious harm caused by domestic violence and the relevant Convention ground(s). The decision of the Grand Chamber in the WS (C-621/21 Intervyuirasht organ na DAB pri MS) case of the EU Court of Justice has attracted considerable attention due to the Court’s finding that women victims of domestic violence can be considered members of a particular social group for the purposes of granting refugee status. Furthermore, this decision will contribute to the international judicial dialogue on women’s asylum claims and set precedents in relevant jurisdictions. This article will examine how the criterion of belonging to a particular social group is applied in applications concerning domestic violence in international refugee law and will analyse key cases in this area. The article aims first to make a theoretical contribution to the literature, applying insights from studies on domestic violence to refugee law, and then to examine the WS decision of the EU Court of Justice, which has the potential to be a significant landmark in this field, thus providing a basis for principled adjudication.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Domestic violence
• Refugee law
• Membership of a particular social group
• EU Court of Justice
• WS Bulgaria decision

MÜLTECİ HUKUKUNDA BELLİ BİR SOSYAL GRUBA AİDİYET KRİTERİ VE ‘AİLE İÇİ ŞİDDET’ BAĞLAMINDA AB ADALET DİVANININ WS BULGARİSTAN KARARI (C-621/21, WS v. Intervyuirasht organ na DAB pri MS)

Öz

1951 BM Mültecilerin Hukuki Durumuna İlişkin Cenevre Sözleşmesinin 1A maddesinde mülteciye dair basit bir tanım vardır ve Sözleşmede sayılan ‘belli bir sosyal gruba aidiyet’ kavramı için tek bir uygulama bulunmamakta olup farklı mahkeme kararları ile karşılaşılmaktadır. İltica başvurusunun yapıldığı devletler, ‘belirli bir grup’ kavramını belirlemek için farklı metodlar kullandıklarından, bu aile içi şiddet ve cinayeti potansiyel mağdurlarının uluslararası korumadan yararlanmaları noktasında önemli engeller oluşturmaktadır. Sonuç olarak sığınma taleplerinin yargılamasını olumsuz etkileyen ve adil olmayan farklılıklara yol açan bir içtihat birliğinin eksikliği ortaya çıkmaktadır. Bu cinayetler bir çok davada genellikle kültürel relativist yaklaşım da dahil olmak üzere özel ya da aile içi bir durum olarak görülmüştür ve mevcut tanımlar ile 1951 Cenevre Sözleşmesi’nin yorumu içerisinde bu zulmün yapıldığı “Üçüncü Dün-ya” ülkelerinin kültürel farklılıkları olduğu görüşü ile açıklanıp iç hukukun sorunu olduğu iddiası ile uluslararası koruma talepleri reddedilmiştir. Faillerin ‘özel’ saiklerine orantısız bir şekilde odaklanmak, aile içi şiddetin beraberinde getirdiği ciddi zarar ile ilgili Sözleşme gerekçesi(leri) arasındaki bağlantıyı da belirsizleştirmiştir. AB Adalet Divanının WS (C-621/21 Intervyuirasht organ na DAB pri MS) davasında Büyük Daire tarafından verilen karar, mahkemenin aile içi şiddet mağduru kadınların mülteci statüsünün tanınması amacıyla belirli bir sosyal grubun üyeleri olarak kabul edilebileceği bulgusuyla önemli ölçüde dikkat çekmiştir. Ayrıca, bu karar kadınların sığınma talepleri hakkındaki uluslararası yargı diyaloğuna katkıda bulunacak ve ilgili yargı alanlarında emsaller oluşturacaktır. Bu makale, uluslararası mülteci hukukunda aile içi şiddete ilişkin başvuru-larda belli bir sosyal gruba aidiyet kriterinin ne şekilde uygulandığını inceleyecek ve bu alandaki temel davaları analiz edecektir. Makale, öncelikle literatüre teorik bir katkıda bulunmayı, aile içi şiddete ilişkin çalışmalardan elde edilen içgörüleri mülteci hukukuna uygulamayı, ardından AB Adalet Divanının bu alanda önemli bir dönüm noktası potansiyeline sahip WS kararını da inceleyerek böylece ilkeli yargılama için bir temel sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Aile içi şiddet
• Mülteci hukuku
• Belli bir sosyal gruba aidiyet
• AB Adalet Divanı
• WS Bulgaristan kararı.

Kaynakça

1. Akyürek, İnayet Burcu, Mülteci Hukuku ve Türkiye Uygulaması, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Kırıkkale 2007.
2. Altıparmak, Özlem: “Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanının WS Kararı Işığında Devletin Aile İçi Şiddet Mağdurlarını Korumamasının Mülteci Hukuku Açısından Sonuçları”, İzmir Demokrasi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 1, Sayı 1, 2025, s. 25-42.
3. Anker, Deborah: “Introduction to Noonan”, Noonan, John T.: Lazo-Majano: “Alive, Well, and Thriving at Twenty-Seven”, Harvard Human Rights Journal, Cilt 28, 2015, s. 1-25.
4. Anker, Deborah: “Refugee Status and Violence against Women in the ‘Domestic’ Sphere: The Non State Actor Question”, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Cilt 15, Sayı 3, 2001, s. 391-402.
5. Bailliet, Cecilia M.: “Persecution in the Home: Applying the Due Dilligence Standard to Harmful Traditional Practices within Human Rights and Refugee Law”, Nordic Journal of Human Rights, Cilt 30, Sayı 1, 2012, s. 36-62.
6. Briddick, Catherine: “Unprincipled and Unrealised: CEDAW and Discrimination Experienced in the Context of Migration Control”, International Journal of Discrimination and the Law, Cilt 22, Sayı 3, s. 224-243.
7. Chetail, Vincent: “The Implementation of the Qualification Directive in France: One Step Forward and Two Steps Backwards”, Zwaan, K. (Ed.): The Qualification Directive: Central Themes, Problem Issues, and Implementation in Selected Member States, Wolf Legal Publishing, Nijmegen 2007, s. 87-103.
8. Copelon, Rhonda: “Surfacing Gender; Re-engraving Crimes Against Women in Humanitarian Law”, Hastings Women’s Law Journal, Cilt 5, Sayı 2, 1994, s. 244-266.

9. Crawley, Heaven: Refugees and Gender, Law and Process, Jordan Publishing Limited, Bristol 2001.
10. Çamyamaç, Anıl: Uluslararası Hukuk Müessesesi Olarak Uluslararası Örgütler Arasında Ardıllık, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi (2022), Cilt: 24, Sayı: 1, s. 1-37.
11. Donnelly, Jack: International Human Rights, Westview Press, Boulder 1998.
12. Elden, Asa: “‘The Killing seemed to be Necessary’: Arab Cultural Affiliation as an Extenuating circumstance in a Swedish Verdict, NORA - Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, Cilt 6, Sayı 2, 1998, s. 89-96.
13. Fulu, Emma/Warner, Xian/Miedema, Stephanie/Jewkes, Rachel/Roselli, Tim/Lang, James: Why Do Some Men Use Violence Against Women and How Can We Prevent It? Quantitative Findings from the United Nations Multi-Country Study on Men and Violence in Asia and the Pacific, UNDP, UNFPA, UN Women and UNV, Bangkok 2013. Grahl-Madsen, Atle: “Refugees and Refugee Law in a World in Transition”, Michigan Journal of International Law, Cilt 3, Sayı 1, s. 65-88.
14. Goodwin-Gill, Guy S./McAdam, Jane: The Refugee in International Law, 3. Baskı, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2007.
15. Hathaway, James C./Foster, Michelle: The Law of Refugee Status, 2. Baskı, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2014.
16. Hathaway, James C.: The Law of Refugee Status, 1. Baskı, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1991.
17. Heise, Lori L./Kotsadam, Andreas: “Cross-National and Multilevel Correlates of Partner Violence: An Analysis Of Data From Population-Based Surveys”, The Lancet Global Health, Cilt 3, Sayı 6, 2015, s. 332-340.
18. Hessbruegge, Jan A.: “The Historical Development of the Doctrines of Attribution and Due Dilligence in International Law”, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, Cilt 36, Sayı 4, 2004, s. 265-298.
19. Kelly, Liz/Westmarland, Nicole: “Naming and Defining ‘Domestic Violence’: Lessons from Research with Violent Men”, Feminist Review, Cilt 112, Sayı 1, 2016, s. 113-127.
20. Lambert, Helene: Seeking Asylum: Comparative Law and Practice in Selected European Countries, Springer 1995.
21. Loxa, Alezini: “International Human Rights Commitments to Protect Victims of Domestic Violence: Refugee Recognition as the First Step for an Integrated Approach under EU Law in Case C-621/21, Intervyuirasht organ na DAB pri MS (women victims of domestic violence)”, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, Cilt 31, Sayı 4, 2024, s. 535-550.
22. Mathew, Penelope/Hathaway, James C./Foster, Michelle: “The Role of State Protection in Refugee Analysis, Discussion Paper No.2, Advanced Refugee Law Workshop, International Association of Refugee Law Judges, Auckland, New Zealand”, International Journal of Refugee Law, Cilt 15, Sayı 3, 2003, s. 444-460.
23. O’Sullivan, Maria: “Acting the Part: Can Non-State Entities Provide Protection under International Refugee Law?”, International Journal of Refugee Law, Cilt 24, Sayı 1, 2012, s. 85-110.
24. Özkan, Işıl: Göç, İltica ve Sığınma Hukuku, Seçkin, Ankara 2013.
25. Prochazka, Susanne J.: “There Is No Honour in Honour Killings: Why Women at Risk for Defying Socio-Sexual Norms Must Be Considered A ‘Particular Social Group’ Under Asylum Law”, Thomas Jefferson Law Review, Cilt 34, Sayı 2, 2012, s. 445-503.
26. Querton, Christel: “Gender and the Boundaries of International Refugee Law: Beyond the Category of ‘Gender-Related Asylum Claims’”, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Cilt 37, Sayı 4, 2019, s. 379-397.
27. Safi, Sibel: Mülteci Hukuku, Güncellenmiş 2. Baskı, Legal Yayıncılık, İstanbul 2023.
28. Shacknove, Andrew E.: Who Is a Refugee, Ethicts, Vol.95, No. 2 (Jan., 1985), s. 274-284.
29. Sikora, Damien: “Differing Cultures, Differing Culpabilities?: A Sensible Alternative: Using Cultural Circumstances as a Mitigating Factor in Sentencing”, Ohio State Law Journal, Cilt 62, 2001, s. 1695-1724.
30. Spatz, Melissa: “A ‘Lesser’ Crime: A Comparative Study Of Legal Defences For Men Who Kill Their Wives”, Columbia Journal of Law And Social Problems, Cilt 24, 2001, s. 597-638.
31. Spijkerboer, Thomas: “Asylum Decision-Making, Gender and Sexuality”, Tsourdi, Evangelina/De Bruycker, Philippe (Ed.) içinde, Research Handbook on EU Migration and Asylum Law, Edward Elgar, 2022, s. 194-204.
32. Steininger, Silvia: “The CJEU’s Feminist Turn?: Gender-based Persecution as a Ground for Protection”, VerfBlog, 20 Feb. 2024, https://verfassungsblog.de/the-cjeus-feminist-turn/ (Erişim tarihi: 14.01.2025)
33. Teays, Wanda: “The Burning Bride: The Dowry Problem in India”, Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, Cilt 7, Sayı 2, 1991, s. 29-52.
34. Thym, Daniel: European Migration Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2023.
35. Tiberghien, Frederic: Persecution by Non-Public Agents. Refugee and Asylum Law, Assessing the Scope for Judicial Protection, Nederland Centrum Buitanlanders, Utrecht 1997.
36. Wilsher, Daniel: “Non-State Actors and the Definition of a Refugee in the United Kingdom Protection, Accountability or Culpability?”, International Journal of Refugee Law, Cilt 15, Sayı 1, 2003, s. 68-112.
37. Yeo, Colin: “Agents of the State: When is an Official of the State an Agent of the State?”, International Journal of Refugee Law, Cilt 14, Sayı 4, s. 509-533.
38. Abankwah v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, (1999) 185 F.3d 18 (USCA, 2nd Cir., Jul. 9, 1999)
39. Applicant A v. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, (1997) 190 CLR 225 (Aus. HC, Feb. 24, 1997)
40. Avetova-Elisseva v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, (2000) 213 F.3d 1192 (USCA, 9th Cir., May 15, 2000) Baballah, (USCA, 9th Cir., 2003)
41. Canaj v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (2001) INLR 342 (Eng. CA, May 24, 2001)
42. Chan v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (1995) 3 SCR 593 (Can. SC, Oct. 19, 1995)
43. CNDA, 24 Mar. 2015, n° 10012810, Mlle J. E. F
44. Compendium of Decisions: Canadian Guideline 4
45. Council Directive 2011/95/EU, 2011
46. Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence, CETS No.210, 2011
47. Da Silva, (USCA, 11th Cir., 2012), s. 6
48. De Calles v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (1993) FCJ 478 (Can FCTD, May 4, 1993)
49. Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, 2014
50. Dyli v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (2000) Imm AR 652 (UKIAT, Aug. 30, 2000)
51. E v. United Kingdom, (2003) 36 EHRR 31 (ECtHR, Nov. 26, 2002)
52. Elmi v. Australia, Communication No. 120/1998, UN Doc. CAT/C/22/D/120/1998 (May 25, 1999)
53. Garcia v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2007) 4 FCR 385 (Can. FC, Jan. 24, 2007)
54. Gardi v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (2002) 1 WLR 2755 (Eng. CA, May 24, 2002)
55. Horvath v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (2001) 1 AC 489 (UKHL, Jul. 6, 2000)
56. In re Fauziya Kasinga, 3278 (USBIA, 1996)
57. Kahloo v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, (1997) FCA 1430 (Aus. FC, Dec. 1, 1997)
58. Khawar – Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v. Khawar, [2002] HCA 14 (Aus. HC, 2002)
59. Kimimwe v. Attorney General, (2005) 431 F.3d 319 (USCA, 8th Cir., Dec. 13, 2005)
60. Mehmood v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, (2002) FCA 37 (Aus. FC, Jan. 31, 2002)
61. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v. Kord, (2002) 125 FCR 68 (Aus. FFC, Mar. 28, 2002)
62. Narvaez v. M.C.I., [1995] 2 F.C. 55 (Can. FC, T.D.)
63. NS (Social Group – Women – Forced Marriage) Afghanistan v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2004] UKIAT 00328 (Dec. 30, 2004)
64. Opuz, (ECtHR, 2009)
65. Plaintiff M70/2011 v. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, (2011) 244CLR 144 (Aus. HC, Aug. 31, 2011)
66. PS (Sri Lanka) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (2008) EWCA Civ 1213 (Eng. CA, Nov. 6, 2008)
67. R (Bagdanavicious) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (2005) 2 AC 668 (UKHL, May 26, 2005)
68. R (Danilovas) v. Special Adjudicator, (2002) EWHC 1471 (Eng. HC, Jul. 3, 2002)
69. R v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Ex Parte Shah, (1999) 2 AC 629 (UKHL, Mar. 25, 1999)
70. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department: Ex Parte Adan, (2001) 2 AC 477 (UKHL, Dec. 19, 2000)
71. Refugee Appeal No. 71427/99, NZ RSAA, 2000, AT 572 (81)
72. Refugee Appeal No. 76044, New Zealand: Refugee Status Appeals Authority, 11 Sep. 2008
73. Rodriquez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1996) FCJ 283 (Can. FCTD, Mar. 1, 1996)
74. Rreshpja v. Gonzales, (2005) 420 F.3d 551 (USCA, 6th Cir., 2005), par. 15
75. Sarhan v. Holder, (2011) 658 F.3d 649 (USCA, 7th Cir., Sept. 2, 2011)
76. Sedley L. J. SZDWR v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, (2006) 149 FCR 550 (Aus. FFC, Mar. 21, 2006)
77. Siaw v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, (2001) FCA 953 (Aus. FC, Jul. 23, 2001)
78. Singh v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, (2002) FCA 37 (Aus. FC, Jan. 31, 2002)
79. Sivakumaran, UKHL, 1987
80. Sufi and Elmi v. United Kingdom, (2012) 54 EHRR 9 (ECtHR, Jun. 28, 2011)
81. Sunarso v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, (2000) 99 FCR 125 (Aus. FC, Feb. 7, 2000)
82. SZONJ v. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, (2011) FMCA 1 (Aus. FMC, Jan. 28, 2011)
83. TI v. United Kingdom, (2000) III Eur Court HR 435 (ECtHR, Mar. 7, 2000)
84. Ward v. Canada (Attorney General), (1993) 2 SCR 689 (Can. SC, Jun. 30, 1993)
85. Wierzbicki v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (2001) Imm AR 602 (Eng. CA, Mar. 15, 2001)
86. Zalzali, Can. FCA, 1991
87. Zhuravlvev v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2000) 4 FC 3 (Can. FCTD, Apr. 14, 2000)