STRASBOURG’DA HERKÜLLERE İHTİYACIMIZ VAR MI? ULUSAL TAKDİR YETKİSİ VE EVRENSEL STANDARTLAR ARASINDA AVRUPA İNSAN HAKLARI MAHKEMESİ

Öz

Makalede Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi tarafından geliştirilen ve taraf devletlerin Sözleşmeden kaynaklanan yükümlülüklerinin tespitinde kullanılan ulusal takdir yetkisi doktrininin Mahkeme içtihadında oynadığı rol incelenmektedir. Doktrinin ortaya çıkış nedeni ve dayandığı temeller tartışıldıktan sonra Mahkemenin bir hakkın ihlal edilip edilmediği değerlendirmesini yaparken kullandığı beş aşamalı incelemenin her aşamasında doktrinin oynadığı rol ayrı ayrı irdelenmektedir. Bu aşamalar; a) Sözleşme kapsamında bir hakkın ve bu hakka müdahalenin varlığı, b) Devletin pozitif bir ödevinin varlığı ve yerine getirilip getirilmediği, c) Müdahalenin hukukiliği, d) Müdahalenin amacı ve e) Müdahalenin gerekliliğidir. Bu inceleme sırasında Dworkin’in zor davalarda yargıcın rolüne ilişkin olarak geliştirdiği teorik çerçeve esas alınarak Mahkemenin doktrine atfettiği rolün doğru olup olmadığı tartışılmaktadır. Makalede siyasal ve hukuki nitelikli sorunların ayrıştırılması halinde ancak doktrinin işlevsel olabileceği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır Buna göre bir hakkın Sözleşmenin kapsamında olup olmadığına karar verme yetkisi bir yasama yetkisidir ve siyasal nitelik taşır. Dolayısıyla bu alanda doktrine başvurulabilir. Ancak bir hakka ne kadar müdahale edilebileceği kararı hukuki bir karardır ve Mahkeme bu konularda evrensel standartları belirlemeli ve takdir yetkisine başvurmamalıdır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi, ulusal takdir yetkisi, Dworkin, Herkül Yargıç

Do We Need Hercules in Strasbourg? ECtHR between Universal Standards and National Margin of Appreciation

Öz

This article examines the role of the margin of appreciation doctrine, which is developed by the European Court of Human Rights and used in determination of the obligations of the contracting States arising from the Convention, in the case-law of the Court. Having discussed the emergence and legitimacy of the doctrine, the role of it in each of the five stages where the Court examines whether there is a violation of a Convention right has been scrutinized. These stages are; a) whether there is a right and an interference with it? b) is there positive obligations of the contracting state? c) is interference lawfull? d) does interference have a lagitimate aim? e) is interference necessary? In this analysis it has been discussed whether the role attributed to the margin of appreciation doctrine by ECtHR is correct on the basis of Dworkin’s theoretical framework about the role of judge in hard cases. Article concludes that margin of appreciation doctrine can be functional only if political questions are distinguished from legal issues. Accordingly, a decision about whether a right is in the scope of the Convention is a legislative issue, that is, it has a political nature and there is a room for the doctrine in this area. On the other hand, a decision about how far a right can be interfered is a legal problem and the Court should establish universal standards

Anahtar Kelimeler

• European Court of Human Rights, European Convention on

Kaynakça

1. Altıparmak, Kerem ve Karahanoğulları, Onur, “Phyrrus Zaferi: Leyla Şahin v. Türkiye, AİHM v. Hukuk, Düzenleyici İşlem v. Kanun", Hukuk ve Adalet Dergisi, 3, (2004), s.249-275.
2. Altiparmak, Kerem and Karahanogullari, Onur “After Şahin: The Debate on Headscarf is not Over”, European Constitutional Law Review, Vol. 2, Is. 02, (2006), s.268-292.
3. Arai-Takahashi, Yutaka, The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (Intersentia: Antwerpen, 2002).
4. Bakırcıoğlu, Önder, “The Application of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in Freedom of Expression and Public Morality Cases”, German Law Journal, Vol. 08 No.07 (2007), s. 711-734.
5. Benvenisti, Eyal “Margin of Appreciation, Consensus and Universal Standards” International Law and Politics, Vol. 31 (1999), s.843- 854.
6. Carozzo, Paolo G., “Subsidiarity as Structural Principle of International Human Rights Law”, 97 American Journal of International Law (2003), s. 38-79.
7. Çoban, Ali Rıza, Protection of Property Rights within the European Convention on Human Rights (Aldershoot: Ashgate, 2004).
8. Dworkin, Ronald, “Rights as Trumps” in Waldron, J. (ed.) Theories of Rights (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984).

9. Dworkin, Ronald, Taking Rights Seriously (Cambridge: Harvard University Pres, 1977).
10. Eisen, Marc-Andre, “The Principle of Proportionality in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights” in Macdonald et al (eds.) The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (Dordrecht: M. Nijhoff, 1993).
11. Gözler, Kemal, İdare Hukuku (Bursa: Ekin, 2003).
12. Gözübüyük, Şeref ve Gölcüklü, Feyyaz, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi ve Uygulaması (Ankara: Turhan, 2004).
13. Hirschl, Ran “The New Constitutionalism and the Judicialisation of Pure Politics Worldwide”, 2006 Fordham Law Review V.75 No.2, s.721- 754. del Moral, Ignacio de la Rasilla, “The Increasingly Marginal Appreciation of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine”, German Law Journal, Vol. 07 No. 06 (2006), s. 611-624.
14. Letsas, George, “Two Concepts of the Margin of Appreciation”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies,Vol. 26, No.4 (2006), s.705-732.
15. Levander, Nicholas, “The Problem of the Margin of Appreciation”, European Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 4, (1997), s.380-390.
16. Macdonald, Ronald St. J., “The Margin of Appreciation” in Macdonald, Matscher, and Petzold (eds.) The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1993), s.83-124.
17. McBride, Jeremy, “Proportionality and the European Convention on Human Rights” in Ellis, E., The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe (Oxford: Hart Pub., 1999).
18. Mowbray, Alastair, “Creativity of the European Court of Human Rights”, Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 5 No. 1 (2005), s. 57-79.
19. Mowbray, Alastair, The Development of Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2004).
20. Nardin, Terry, Law, Morality and the Relations of States (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989).
21. Orakhelashvili, Alexander, “Restrictive Interpretation of Human Rights Treaties in the Recent Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 14 (2003), s.77-90.
22. Ostrovsky, Aaron A., “What’s So Funny About Peace, Love, and Understanding? How the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine Preserves Core Human Rights within Cultural Diversity and Legitimises International Human Rights Tribunals”, Hanse Law Review, Vol.1 N0.1 (2005), s.47-64.
23. Petzold, Herbert, “The Convention and the Principle of Subsidiarity” in Macdonald, Matscher, and Petzold (eds.) The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1993).
24. Singh, Rabinder, “Is There a Role for the ‘Margin of Appreciation’ in National Law after the Human Rights Act?”, European Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 4 (1999), s.15-22.
25. Stone, Thomas.Willoughby., “Margin of Appreciation Gone Awry: The European Court of Human Rights' Implicit Use of the Precautionary Principle in Frette v. France to Backtrack on Protection from Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation”, (2003) 3 Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal s. 271-294.
26. van Dijk, van Hoof, van Rinj and Zwaak (eds.) Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights (Antwerpen: Intersentia, 2006).
27. Wilkins, Burleigh, “International Human Rights and National Discretion”. The Journal of Ethics, Vol. 6 (2002), s. 373-382.
28. Winisdoerffer, Yves, “Margin of Appreciation and Article 1 of Protocol No.1”, Human Rights Law Journal, Vol. 19 No.1, s.18-20.
29. Yourow, Howard C., The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Dynamics of European Human Rights Jurisprudence (Martinus Nijhoff: Dordrecht, 1996).
30. .O. v. Italy, App. No. 22534/93, 30.05.2000
31. Adalı v. Turkey, App. No. 38187/97, 31.03.2005
32. Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus , 09.10.1997, EHRR 1997-VI
33. Brogan, Series A, No. 145-B (1988) 11 EHRR 117
34. Chassagnou and Others v. France, 29.04.1999, EHRR 1999-II.
35. Chorherr v. Austria, 25.08.1993 A-266B
36. Cossey v. UK, 13 EHRR 622 (1991)
37. Darby v. Sweden, 23.10.1990, A187
38. Dudgeon v. UK, 4 EHRR 149 (1982)
39. E.B. v France, App. No. 43546/02. (GC) 22.01.2008
40. Evans v. UK, [GC], App. No. 6339/05, 17.04.2007
41. Frette v. France, 38 EHRR 438 (2004)
42. Goodwin v. UK, 35 EHRR 447 (2002)
43. Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland, 28 .03.1990, A173
44. Gül v. Swirzerland, ECHR 1996-I
45. Güleç v. Turkey, EHRR 1998-IV.
46. Handyside v. UK, App. 07.12.1976, A24.
47. Hentrich v. France, App. No. 13616/88, A296A.
48. Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24.09.1992, A244
49. Hatton and Others v. UK, 02.10.2001
50. I v. UK, 40 EHRR 967 (2003)
51. Ireland v. UK, 18.01.1978, 2 EHRR 25.
52. İmmobiliare Saffi v. Italy, 28.07.1999, EHRR 1999-V
53. James and Others v. UK, Series A 98
54. Kalaç v. Turkey, 27.02.1997
55. Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, (GC) 10.11.2005
56. Lopez-Ostra v. Spain, 09.12.1994, A 303-C
57. Muller and Others v. Switzerland, App. No. 10737/ 84, 24.05.1988
58. Murphy v. Ireland, App. No. 44179/98, 10.07.2003, EHRR 2003-IX
59. Müller and Others v. Switzerland, App. No. 10737/84, 24.05.1988, A133
60. Olsson v. Sweden, (No. 1) App. No. 10465/83, A 130
61. Otto-Preminger Institut v. Austria, 20.09.1994, A295A
62. Öneryıldız v. Turkey, 30.11.2004 (GC) ECHR 2004-VII
63. Rees v. UK, 9 EHRR 56 (1987)
64. Salah Sheekh v. The Netherlands, App. No. 1948/04, 11.01.2007
65. Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, 31 EHRR 1055 (2001)
66. Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, 31 EHRR 1055 (2001)
67. Sheffield and Horsham v. UK, (1998)
68. Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25.03. 1983, Series A 61
69. Smith and Grady v. UK, 29 EHRR 495 (1999)
70. The Former King of Greece and Other v. Greece, App. No. 25701/94, 23.11.2000
71. Greece v. UK, No 176/56, Yearbook Vol.2
72. Vo v. France [GC], ECHR 2004-VIII
73. Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey, App. No. 10226/03, 10.01.2007
74. ABD Yüksek Mahkemesi
75. Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 191 (1986)
76. Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 2481 (2003)
77. Zimbabwe Yüksek Mahkemesi
78. Banana v. State, Supreme Court, Zimbabwe, 8 BHRC 345 (2000)