Sendika Hakkı, Toplu Sözleşme ve Grevi de İçeren Toplu Eylem Haklarını Kapsar mı?

Öz

Öz

This article examines and evaluates the three successive judgements of the European Court of Human Rights as to the violation by Turkey of the Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights, starting from the first judgments of the Court in 1976 onwards.In its three successive violation judgements within the period of November 2006 and July 2007, the Court has concluded that the right to form and to join trade unions also includes, in accordance with the principle of non-divisibility, the rights to collective bargaining and to collective actions. Thus, those who are employed as workers or public servants have the right to sign collective agreements and the right to resort to collective action for the protection of “their own interests”. Similarly, the unions they form have the right to sign collective agreements and the right to resort to collective action to promote and to defend “the interests of their members”. These rights are under the protection of the Convention.The Court has so concluded on the basis of the goal of “the protection of one’s interests”, in spite of the very limited material content of the positive legislation which affords “the right to form and to join trade unions” in Article 11. This approach —which the Court had not adopted at the beginning— is in line with the “the common international law on trade union rights” consisting of the pertinent conventions and case-laws or decisions of the United Nations, the International Labour Organisation, and the Council of Europe. The relevance of the foregoing judgements is that the obligations which our Country has assumed by the ratification of ILO Conventions No 87 and No 98 and yet not fulfilled have thereby been reinforced by now the judgements of a supervisory body of a “judicial” nature

Kaynakça

1. Bureau international du Travail (BIT), Liberté syndicale et négociation collective (Etude d’ensemble de la Commission d’experts pour l’application des conventions et recommandations), Rapport III (Partie 4B), CIT, 81e session 1994, Genève, 1994.
2. ______. La liberté syndicale, Recueil de décisions et de principes du Comité de la liberté syndicale du Conseil d’administration du BIT, Quatrième édition, 1996, Genève.
3. ______. La liberté syndicale, Recueil de décisions et de principes du Comité de la liberté syndicale du Conseil d’administration du BIT, Cinquième édition, Genève, 2006.
4. ______. Liberté syndicale et négociation collective (Etude d’ensemble de la Commission d’experts pour l’application des conventions et recommandations), Rapport III (Partie 4B), CIT, 81e session 1994, Genève, 1994.
5. Conseil de l’Europe (CE),Comité d’experts indépendants de la Charte Sociale Européenne, Conclusions IV, Strasbourg, 1975.
6. CE, Note d’information No 44 sur la jurisprudence de la Cour, juillet 2002.
7. CE, Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH), Affaire Schmidt et Dahlström, Série A: Arrêts et décisions, vol. 21, Carl Heymanns Verlag KG., Köln- Berlin-Bonn-München, 1976.
8. ______. Affaire syndicat national de la police belge, Série A: Arrêts et décisions, Carl Heymanns Verlag KG., Köln-Berlin-Bonn-München, 1975.

9. ______. Affaire syndicat suédois des conducteurs de locomotives, série A: Arrêts et décisions, vol. 21 (20), Strasbourg, 1976.
10. ______. Affaire Young, James et Webster, série A: Arrêts et décisions, vol. 44, Carl Heymanns Verlag KG. Köln-Berlin-Bonn-München, 1981.
11. ______. Affaire Airey, série A: Arrêts et décisions, vol. 32, Carl Heymanns Verlag KG., Köln-Berlin-Bonn-Mühchen.
12. ______. Affaire Wilson, National Union of Journalists et Autres C. Royaume-Uni, (Requêtes Nos 30668/96, 30671/96 Et 30678/96), Arrêt, Strasbourg, 2 juillet 2002, Définitif, 02/10/2002.
13. ______. Deuxième section, Affaire Tüm Haber Sen et Çınar c. Turquie (Requte No: 28602/95), Arrêt, Strasbourg, 21 février 2006.
14. ______. Affaire Demir et Baykara c. Turquie (Requete No 34503/97), Arret, 21 novembre 2006, Strasbourg.
15. ______. Affaire Karaçay c. Turquie (Requête No 6615/03), Arrêt, 27 mars 2007, Strasbourg.
16. ______. Affaire Satılmış et autres c. Turquie (Requête No 74611/01, 26876/02 et 27628/02), Arrêt, 17 juillet 2007, Strasbourg.
17. Conseil de l’Europe (CE), Comité européen des droits sociaux (CEDS), Décision sur le bien fondé, Réclamation no: 23/2003, Syndicat occitan de l’éducation c. France, 2003.
18. Doğru, Osman, (editör), İnsan Hakları Kararlar Derlemesi, Cilt 1, İstanbul Barosu Yayını, İstanbul 1998.
19. Gülmez, Mesut, Sendikal Hakların Uluslararası Kuralları ve Türkiye (UÇÖ/ ILO Sözleşme ve İlkeleri), TODAİE Yayını, No: 223, Ankara, 1988.
20. ______. Sendikal Haklarda Uluslararası Hukuka ve Avrupa Birliğine Uyum Sorunu, Belediye-İş Yayını, “AB’ye Sosyal Uyum Süreci Dizisi, No: 1, İkinci Baskı (Tıpkı Basım), Ankara, Temmuz 2006.
21. ______. “İnsan Hakları Avrupa Mahkemesinin Demir-Baykara/Türkiye Davası Kararı: Bağlayıcılığı, İçeriği, Etkileri ve Sonuçları”, Ulusal ve Uluslararası Hukukta Kamu Görevlilerinin Toplu Sözleşme Hakkı, Tüm Bel-Sen Yayını, Ankara, (2008), s. 5-32;
22. ______. “Strazburg Mahkemesi, Sendikal Hakların Bütünsellik ve Bölünmezliğini Onayladı”, Eğitim-İş Dergisi, Sayı 3, Ocak 2008, s. 24-27.
23. ______. “Aykırılıklarla Dolu Kamu Görevlileri Sendikaları Yasası”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, Cilt 34, Sayı 3, Eylül 2001, s. 3-21.
24. ______. “Gözden Geçirilmiş Avrupa Sosyal Şartına Uyum Sağlayabilecek miyiz?”, Çalışma ve Toplum, 2007/1, Sayı 12, s. 27-52.
25. ______. “İnsan Hakları Avrupa Sözleşmesi’nin Hazırlık Süreci ve 11. Madde”, İnsan Hakları Yıllığı, Cilt 16, 1994, s. 15-36.
26. ______. “Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu Kararı: ‘Mevzuatçı’ Hukuk Kültürünün Ürünü Bir Karar”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, Cilt 28, Sayı 2, Haziran 1995, s. 141-153.
27. ______. “Memurların Sendika Hakkı Vardır”, Cumhuriyet, 24 Aralık 1987, s. 2.
28. ______. “Uluslararası Sözleşmeler ve Memurların Sendika Hakkı”, abece, Sayı 92, Şubat 1988, s. 18-20.
29. Nation Unies (NU), Conseil économique et social (CES), Observations finales du Comité des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels: Mauritius, 31/05/1994, E/C. 12/1994/8, 31 mai 1994.
30. ______.Observations finales du Comité des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels: Colombia, 06/12/1995, E/C. 12/1995/18, paras. 173-202, 6 décembre 1995, parag. 188; 28/12/1995, E/C. 12/1995/12, 28 décembre 1995.
31. ______.Observations finales du Comité des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels: Zimbabwe, Concluding Observations/Comments, 20/05/97, E/C.12/1/Add. 12, 20 mai 1997.
32. ______.Observations finales du Comité des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels: Slovakia, Concluding Observations/Comments, 19/12/2002, E/C.12/1/Add. 81, 19 décembre 2002.
33. ______.Observations finales du Comité des droits de l’homme: Ecuator, Concluding Observations/Comments, 07/11/1991, A/47/40.
34. ______. Observations finales du Comité des droits de l’homme: Guatemala, Concluding Observations/Comments, 03/04/1996, CCPR/CO/79/Add.63, 3 avril 1996.
35. ______.Observations finales du Comité des droits de l’homme: Germany, Concluding Observations/Comments, 18/11/1996, CCPR/C/79/Add.73, 18 novembre 1996.
36. ______.Observations finales du Comité des droits de l’homme: Lithuania, Concluding Observations/Comments, 04/05/2004, CCPR/CO/80/LTU, 4 mai 2004.
37. Özdek, Yasemin, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Hukuku ve Türkiye, TODAİE Yayını, Ankara, 2004.
38. Sudre, Frédéric, Droit européen et international des droits de l’homme, 7e édition refondue, PUF, Paris, avril 2005.
39. Sur, Melda, İş Hukukunun Uluslararası Kaynakları, Avrupa Konseyi Çerçevesinde Kabul Edilen Belgeler, Dokuzeylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayını, İzmir, 1995.