Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesinin 35 § 3 (b) maddesinde yer alan yeni kabul edilebilirlik ölçütü: ‘önemli zarar’

Öz

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesinin iş yükünün giderek artması karşısında Yüksek Sözleşmeci Taraflar tarafından iş yükünü azaltma amacıyla yeni bir kabuledilebilirlik kriteri uygulamaya konulmuştur. Yeni kriter yoğunlaşabilmesine yardım edebilecek ek bir araç sağlamaktadır. Bir başka deyişle bu kriter Mahkemeye, ‘yargıçların önemsiz davalara bakmamaları ilkesi’ gereğince, ‘önemsiz’ gördüğü davaları reddetme imkanı vermektedir. gereken bir terimdir. Bu terim Mahkemeye mevcut kabuledilebilirlik kriterlerinin sağladığı esnekliğe bir ölçüde ek esneklik sağlamaktadır. Yeni kriter, salt hukuki açıdan bir hakkın ihlali ne denli gerçek olursa olsun, uluslar arası bir Mahkeme tarafından incelenmeyi gerektirecek asgari bir ağırlık düzeyine ulaşmış olması gerektiği düşüncesine dayanmaktadır. Bu makalede yeni kriterin anlamının aydınlatılması ve Mahkemenin kriteri yorumlamada kullandığı yaklaşımının açıklığa kavuşturulması amaçlanmıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Önemli zarar, insan haklarına saygı ilkesi, ulusal mahkemelerce davanın gereğince görülmesi, de minimis non curat praetor (yargıç önemsiz konularla uğraşmaz), asgari ağırlık eşiği, 14. Protokol

The New Admissibility Criterion Stated in the Article 35 § 3 (b) of the European Convention of Human Rights: ‘Significant Disadvantage’

Öz

The new admissibility criterion was entered into force by the High Contracting Parties for the purpose in view of the ever-increasing caseload of the European Court of Human Rights. It provides the Court with an additional tool which should assist it in concentrating on cases which warrant an examination on the merits. In other words, it enables the Court to reject cases considered as ‘unmeritorious’ pursuant to ‘the principle whereby judges should not deal with such cases’. Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention is composed of three distinct elements. Firstly, the admissibility criterion itself: the Court may declare inadmissible any individual application where the applicant has suffered no significant disadvantage. Next come two safeguard clauses. Firstly, the Court may not declare such an application inadmissible where respect for human rights requires an examination of the application on the merits. Secondly, no case may be rejected under this new criterion which has not been duly considered by a domestic authority. ‘Significant disadvantage’ is a term which is capable of, and requires, interpretation establishing objective criteria through the gradual development of the case-law of the Court. This term gives the Court some degree of flexibility, in addition to that already provided by the existing admissibility criteria. The new criterion hinges on the idea that a violation of a right, however real from a purely legal point of view, should attain a minimum level of severity to warrant consideration by an international Court. In this article we aimed at to clarify the meaning of the new criteria and to explain the interpretation approach of the new criteria of the Court

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Significant disadvantage, the principle of respect for human rights, duly considered by a domestic tribunal, de minimis non curat praetor (the praetor does not concern himself with trifles), minimum level of severity,14thProtocol

Kaynakça

1. Action Plan adopted by the High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights, Interlaken, 19 February 2010.
2. Bates, Ed. (2010). The Evolution of the European Convention on Human Rights from its Inception to the Creation of a Permanent Court of Human Rights. UK: Oxford University Press.
3. Bernhardt, Rudolf. (2009). Discussion Following the Presentation by Rudolf Bernhardt. Rüdiger Wolfrum ve Ulrike Deutsch (Ed.). The European Court of Human Rights Overwhelmed by Applications: Problems and Possible Solutions (s. 37-50). Heidelberg: Springer, s. 37-50.
4. Caflisch, Lucius. (2006). The Reform of the European Court of Human Rights: Protocol No. 14 and Beyond. Human Rights Law Review, 6(2), s. 403-415.
5. Committee of Ministers, Report of the Evaluation Group to the Committee of Ministers on the European Court of Human Rights, EG Court(2001)1, Concil https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=226195&Lang=fr 18.01.2012). Europe, 27 September 2001, (Erişim:
6. Council of Europe, Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Amending the Control System of the Convention, Council of Europe Treaty Series (CETS) No. 194, 13 May 2004.
7. Council of Europe, Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Amending the Control System of the Convention, Explanatory Report CETS no. 194, Council of Europe, 2009.
8. Coincil of Europe, “High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights”, Presented at the Organised Within The Framework of the Turkish Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Izmir, 2011.

9. Council of Europe, “High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights Brighton Declaration”, Council of Europe, 2012, http://hub.coe.int/20120419-brighton-declaration.
10. Council Europe / European Court of Human Rights, Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria, March 2011, http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdon lyres/B5358231-79EF-4767-975F-524E0DCF2FBA/0/E pratique.pdf (Erişim: 15.12.2012). NG_Guide_
11. Çağıran, Mehmet Emin. (2007). 14 no.lu Protokol Çerçevesinde Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi Denetim Sisteminde İyileştirme Çalışmaları. SÜİİBF Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 1(5), s. 1-29.
12. Çoban, Ali Rıza. (2005). Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi Koruma Mekanizmasında Reform: 14. Protokol Mahkemenin İş Yükü Derdine Deva Olur Mu?. AÜHFD, 54(2), s. 319-45.
13. Dembour, B. Marie. ‘ Finishing Off’ Cases: The Radical Solution to the Problem of the Expanding ECtHR Caseload, European Human Rights Law Review, 5, s. 604-623.
14. Dijk, Pieter Van, J. H. Van Hoof Godefridus ve A. W Heringa (Ed.). (2006). Theory and Practice of the European Convention of Human Rights, (4. bs.). UK: Intersentia.
15. Evenson, Elizabeth M. (2001). Reforms Ahead: Enlargement of the Council of Europe and the Future of the Strasbourg System. Human Rights Law Review, 1(2), s. 219-42.
16. European Court of Human Rights, Press Release, issued by the Registrar of the Court, no. 159, 23.02.2011, http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/en/hudoc (Erişim: 10.1.2013).
17. European Court of Human Rights, Press Release, issued by Registrar of the Court, no. 863, 17.11.2011, http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/en/hudoc (Erişim: 10.1.2013).
18. European Court of Human Rights, Press Release, issued by Registrar of the Court, ECHR 092 (2012), 06.03.2012, http://www.echr.coe.int /echr/en/hudoc (Erişim: 10.1.2013).
19. European Court of Human Rights, The New Admissibility Criterion Under Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention: Case-Law Principles Two Years On, Research Report, Coincil of Europe / European Court of Human Rights, June 2012.
20. European Court of Human Rights, Compared Statics: 1/1-30/11/2012, http://www. A92775B7FB72/0/ CMS_30112012_EN.pdf (Erişim: 08.01.2013).
21. Gemalmaz, H. B. (2012). AİHM Yargısında Yeni Dönem: Protokol No. 14’le Getirilen Yeni Kabuledilebilirlik Ölçütünün Uygulanmasına Eleştirel Bakış. Milletlerarası Hukuk Ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni, 31(1), s. 209-42.
22. Göztepe, Ece. (1998). Anayasa Şikâyeti. Ankara: AÜHF Yay. [no: 530].
23. Greer, Steven. (2006). The European Convention on Human Rights: Achievements, Problems and Prospects. UK: Cambridge University Press.
24. Helfer, Laurence R. (2008). Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: Embeddedness as a Deep Structural Principle of the European Human Rights Regime. European Journal of International Law, 19(1), s. 125-159.
25. Lemmens, Paul ve Wouter Vandenhole. (2005). Protocol No. 14 and the Reform of the European Court of Human Rights. UK: Intersentia.
26. Pending Applicatıons Allocated to a Judicial Formation, 30/11/2012, http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/4E2DC596-E3B6-4057-AD19- 657EB874F7AA/ 0/CHART_30112012.pdf (Erişim: 08.01.2013).
27. Steering Committee for human Rights (CDDH), Interim Report of the CDDH to the Committee of Ministers “Guaranteeing the Long−Term Effectiveness of the European Court of Human Rights”, CM(2002)146, 18 October 2002.
28. Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), Final Report Containing Proposals of The CDDH “Guaranteeing The Long−Term Effectiveness Of The European Court Of Human Rights”, CM(2003)55, 8 April 2003.
29. Tomuschat, Chiristian. (2009). The European Court of Human Rights Overwhelmed by Applications: Problems and Possible Solutions. Rüdiger Wolfrum ve Ulrike Deutsch (Ed.). The European Court of Human Rights Overwhelmed by Applications: Problems and Possible Solutions. Germany: Max-Planc Institut. MAHKEME KARARLARI
30. A.CZ s.r.o. v. the Czech Republic, no. 21835/06, 10 February 2011.
31. Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 36659/04, 1 June 2010.
32. Benet Praha, spol. s. r.o., v. the Czech Republic, no. 33908/04, 24 February 2011.
33. Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, ECHR 2006-III
34. Bock v. Almanya (dec), no. 22051/07, 19 January 2010.
35. Bratři Zátkové, a.s., v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 20862/06, 8 February 2011.
36. Burov v. Moldova (dec.), no. 38875/03, 14 June 2011.
37. Can v. Austria, 30 September 1985, Series A no. 96.
38. Čavajda v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 17696/07, 29 March 2011.
39. Debono v. Malta, no. 34539/02, 7 February 2006.
40. Dudek v. Germany (dec.), nos. 12977/09 vd., 23 November 2010.
41. Finger v. Bulgaria, no. 37346/05, 10 May 2011
42. Flisar v. Slovenia, no. 3127/09, 19 September 2011.
43. Fomin v. Moldova, no. 36755/06, 11 October 2011.
44. Gaftoniuc v. Romania (dec.), no. 30934/05, 22 February 2011.
45. Gagliano Giorgi v. Italy, no. 23563/07, 14 February 2012.
46. Gaglione and Others v. Italy, nos. 45867/07 vd., 21 December 2010.
47. Gericke v. Germany, App. No.2294/64, Yearbook VIII (1965).
48. Giuran v. Romania, no. 24360/04, 21 June 2011.
49. Giusti v. İtaly, no. 13175/03, 18 October 2011.
50. Gururyan v. Armenia (dec), no. 11456/05, 24 January 2012.
51. Havelka v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 7332/10, 20 September 2011.
52. Holub v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 24880/05, 14 December 2010.
53. Jančev v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedoni (dec.), no. 18716/09, 4 October 2011.
54. Juhas ðurić v. Serbia, no. 48155/06, 10 April 2012.
55. Kiousi v. Greece (dec.), no. 52036/09, 20 September 2011
56. Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010.
57. Ladygin v. Russia (dec.), no. 35365/05, 30 August 2011.
58. Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, ECHR 2009
59. Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional v. Portugal (dec), no. 49639/09, 3 April 2012.
60. Luchaninova v. Ukraine, no. 16347/02, 9 June 2011.
61. Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, 4 February 2005.
62. Mareš v. the Czech Republic, no. 1414/03, 26 October 2006.
63. Matoušek v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 9965/08, 29 March 2011.
64. Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, ECHR 2009.
65. Miholapa v. Latvia, no. 61655/00, 31 May 2007.
66. Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 61811/00, ECHR 2005-V
67. Nicoleta Gheorghe v. Romania, no. 23470/05, 3 April 2012.
68. O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02, ECHR 2007-VIII.
69. Rinck v. France (dec.), no. 18774/09, 19 October 2011.
70. Sancho Cruz and 14 other “Agrarian Reform” cases v. Portugal, nos. 8851/07 and others, 18 January 2011.
71. Savu v. Romania ((dec.), no. 29218/05, 11 October 2011.
72. Shefer v. Russia (dec.), no. 24880/05 14 December 2012.
73. Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161.
74. Şandru and Others v. Romania, no. 22465/03, 8 December 2009.
75. Ştefănescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 11774/04, 12 April 2011.
76. Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, no. 5856/72, Commission's report of 14 December 1976, Series B 24.
77. Vasilchenko v. Russia, no. 34784/02, 23 September 2010.
78. Vokoun v. the Czech Republic, no. 20728/05, 3 July 2008
79. Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I
80. Živić v. Serbia, no. 37204/08, 13 September 2011.