Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin Yerel Normlar Üzerine Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği

Year 2021, , 3299 - 3323, 15.12.2021

Murat Poyraz

https://doi.org/10.15337/suhfd.1004093

Abstract

The article aims at exploring the impact of the European Court of Human Rights on the local norms of Turkey, a topic that has been understudied, given its bur-geoning significance. The Court is institutionally able to exercise such influence on the state parties, as it is entitled to have final jurisdiction over member states concerning compliance with the Convention and its content. Moreover, the Con-vention itself also necessitates contracting states to conform to the final judgment of the Court and to take sufficient measures, including changes in the local norms to guarantee that the Convention’s rights and freedoms are protected. However, the influence of the Court on domestic norms of a national law needs to be elabo-rated since it remains silent concerning its impact on local norms. Hence, this article chooses Turkey as a case study to study the impact of the Court over local norms.

Keywords

Turkey, The European Convention on Human Rights, Local Norms, The European Court of Human Rights, The Court’s Impact

The Impact of the European Court of Human Rights over Local Norms: The Case of Turkey

Abstract

Bu makalenin amacı, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin Türkiye’nin önemi gittikçe artan fakat üzerinde henüz yeterince çalışmamış bir konu olan iç hukuk normları üzerine etkisini tahlil etmektir. Kuramsal olarak, Mahkeme Sözleşmeye uyumdan ve Sözleşme’nin içeriği hususunda üye devletler üzerine nihai yargı yetkisine sahip olduğundan Mahkeme muhatap devletler üzerinde böyle bir etki gösterebilir. Ayrıca, Sözleşme’nin bizatihi kendisi de taraf devletlerin Mahke-me’nin nihai kararına uymasını ve Sözleşme’de yer alan hak ve özgürlükleri güvence altına almak için yerel normlarda değişiklikler de dahil olmak üzere gerekli önlemleri almasını gerektirmektedir. Ancak, Mahkeme yerel normlar üze-rine olan etkisi konusunda sessiz kaldığı için ulusal hukukun iç normları üze-rindeki etkisinin ayrıntılı olarak ele alınması gerekmektedir. Bu nedenle, bu ma-kale Mahkeme’nin yerel normlar üzerine olan etkisini analiz etmek için Türki-ye’yi örnek olarak seçmiştir.

Keywords

Türkiye, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi, Yerel Normlar, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, Mahkeme’nin Etkisi

References

• 1-ABDELGAWAD, Elisabeth Lambert, The Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg 2008.
• 2-Aleksanyan v. Russia [First Section], no. 46468/06, 22 December 2008.
• 3-APAYDIN, Deniz Tekin, ‘‘Monizm-Dualizm İkileminde Türk Hukuk Sistemi: Uluslararası Hukuka Bakış Üzerine Doktrinel Uzlaşmazlığın Nedenleri ve AB Hukuku Işığında Bir Değerlendirme’’, İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Volume 9, No 1, 2018 (pp. 529-560).
• 4-Asan v. Türkiye [Second Section], no. 28582/02, 27 November 2007.
• 5-Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, 8 April 2004.
• 6-BOND, Martyn, An Introduction to the European Convention on Human Rights, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg 2018.
• 7-Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, 29 March 2006.
• 8-Communication from Turkey concerning the case of ASAN v. Turkey, https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22tabview%22:[%22document%22],%22EXECIdentifier%22:[%22DH-DD(2018)664E%22]} (accessed, on 17 June, 2021).
• 9-Communication from Turkey concerning the case of SAYGILI AND BILGIC v. Turkey, <https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22tabview%22:[%22document%22],%22EXECIdentifier%22:[%22DH-DD(2018)671E%22]} (accessed, on 26 August, 2021).
• 10-Communication from Turkey concerning the ERGIN (No. 6) group of cases v. Turkey, https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22tabview%22:[%22document%22],%22EXECIdentifier%22:[%22DH-DD(2019)359revE%22]} (accessed, on 9 August, 2021).
• 11-Communication from Turkey concerning the Esim group of cases v. Turkey, https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22tabview%22:[%22document%22],%22EXECIdentifier%22:[%22DH-DD(2019)250E%22]} (accessed, on 22 August, 2021).
• 12-Del Rio Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, 21 October 2013
• 13-DZEHTSIAROU, Kanstantsin/ TZEVELEKOS, Vassilis P., ‘‘The Conscience of Europe that Landed in Strasbourg: A Circle of Life of the European Court of Human Rights’’, European Convention on Human Rights Law Review, no 1, (2020): 1-6.
• 14-Ergin v. Turkey [Fourth Section], no. 47533/99, 4 May 2006.
• 15-Erol v. Türkiye [First Section], no. 76290/13, 06 May 2014.
• 16-Esim v. Turkey [Second Section], no. 59601/09, 17 September 2013.
• 17-Gasangusenov v. Russia [Third Section], no. 78019/17, 30 March 2021.
• 18-Georgia v. Russia (II) [GC], no. 38263/08, 21 January 2021.
• 19-GÖZLER, Kemal, ‘‘Askeri Yargı Organlarının Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesine Uygunluğu Sorunu’’, İnsan Hakları Yıllığı, Volume 21-22, 1999-2000 (pp. 77-93).
• 20-ISSAEVA Maria/ SERGEEVA, Irina/ SUCHKOVA, Maria, ‘‘Enforcement of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Russia’’, https://sur.conectas.org/en/enforcement-judgments-european-court-human-rights-russia/ (accessed, on 27 August, 2021).
• 21-Kastmakhunov and Saybatalov v. Russia [First Section], nos. 26261/05 and 26377/06, 14 March 2013.
• 22-Marckx v. Belgium [Plenary], no. 6833/74, 13 June 1979.
• 23-MOORHEAD, Timothy, ‘‘European Union Law as International Law’’, European Journal of Legal Studies, Volume 5, No 1, 2012 (pp. 126-143).
• 24-Müdür Turgut ve diğerleri v. Türkiye [Second Section], no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013.
• 25-N.D. and N.T. v. Spain [GC], nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15, 13 February 2020.
• 26-QORABOYEV, Ikboljon/ TURKUT, Emre, ‘‘Turkey.’’ Within Duelling for Supremacy: International Law vs. National Fundamental Principles, editor Fulvio Maria Palombino, (pp. 336-354). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2019.
• 27-Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, 12 May 2005.
• 28-PAZARCI, Hüseyin. Uluslararası Hukuk, Ankara: Turhan Kitapevi, 2009.
• 29-SALİHPAŞAOĞLU, Yaşar, ‘‘Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi ve Türkiye: Bazı Rakamlar ve Gerçekler’’, Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Volume 8, No 1-2, 2009 (pp. 253-281).
• 30-Saygılı and Bilgiç v. Turkey [Second Section], no. 33667/05, 20 May 2010.
• 31-Sefer Yılmaz ve Meryem Yılmaz / Türkiye [Second Section], no. 611/12, 17 November 2015.
• 32-SEKMEN, Murat, ‘‘6384 Sayılı Kanun ile Kurulmuş İnsan Hakları Tazminat Komisyonu.’’ Uluslararası Hukuk Bülteni, Volume 7, 2016 (pp. 7-9).
• 33-Soering v. The United Kingdom [Plenary], no. 14038/88, 07 June 1989.
• 34-QORABOYEV, Ikboljon and Emre Turkut, ‘‘Turkey’’, Within Duelling for Supremacy: International Law vs. National Fundamental Principles, editor Fulvio Maria Palombino, ( pp. 336-354), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2019.
• 35-Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, 12 May 2005.
• 36-Ümmühan Kaplan v. Türkiye [Second Section], no. 24240/07, 20 March 2012.
• 37-Vidakovic v. Serbia [Second Section], no. 16231/07, 24 May 2011.
• 38-WASSENBERG, Birte, History of the Council of Europe, Council of European Publishing, Strasbourg 2013.
• 39-http://anayasadegisikligi.barobirlik.org.tr/Anayasa_Degisikligi.aspx (accessed, on 10 September, 2021).
• 40-https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/home
• 41-https://www2.tbmm.gov.tr (accessed, on 05 September, 2021).