Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in ECtHR's Treatment of Transsexual Rights, with Insights into the Influential Role of the EU

Yıl 2023, Sayı: 19, 26 - 41, 01.03.2024

Haluk Ballı

Öz

Margin of appreciation doctrine is a legal tool frequently used by the ECtHR in cases dealing with certain human rights the definitions and boundaries of which are open to interpretation. It refers to the flexibility afforded to the Contracting States in fulfilling their responsibilities emanating from the Convention. This way, in cases where there is not a consensus across the Contracting States over a specific issue, national laws function as the ultimate point of reference. One of the areas where the margin of appreciation doctrine is used is cases about human rights violations against transsexuals stemming from state refusal to recognize reassigned sex. Generally, transsexuals taking their states to the Court for violating their basic human rights did not get any substantial result because, until 2002, the Court used the doctrine in favor of the Contracting States and most cases were decided in favor of them due to the lack of a consensus and a set of common practices among member states. In 2002, the Court changed its tendency in favor of the applicants by deciding that The United Kingdom violated Articles 8 and 12 of the Convention in Christine Goodwin v. The United Kingdom. This change in the approach of the Court came about as a result of a trend initiated by the European Union regarding the human rights of transsexuals. In 1989, the European Union published a resolution where it called on its member states to legally guarantee basic rights of transsexuals and called on the Council of Europe to issue a similar report. While this whole set of processes has had positive results for the protection of human rights of transsexuals, issues of whether human rights of transsexuals are properly defined and protected and how the position of the Court as a supranational judicial body is affected by the doctrine still call for more discussion as margin of appreciation doctrine creates a hierarchy of rights by putting certain human rights above others as deemed fit by the norms of the society.

Anahtar Kelimeler

ECHR, European Union, margin of appreciation, human rigts, transsexual rigts

Kaynakça

• Atakan, A. (2010). Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin Takdir Yetkisi Doktrinine İlişkin Bir İnceleme. Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, 16(3–4), 29–36.
• Bakircioglu, O. (2007). The Application of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in Freedom of Expression and Public Morality Cases. German Law Journal, 8(7), 711–733. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200005885
• Clayton, R., Tomlinson, H., & Clayton, R. (Eds.). (2009). The law of human rights (2nd ed). Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
• Costa, J.-P. (2011). On the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights’ Judgments. European Constitutional Law Review, 7(2), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019611200026
• Doğru, D. (2018). Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi Yargılamasında Takdir Marjı (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Eckes, C. (2013). EU Accession to the ECHR: Between Autonomy and Adaptation. The Modern Law Review, 76(2), 254–285. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41857470
• Gender Recognition Act, Chapter 7, Section 2. (2004). Retrieved April 23, 2020, from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/2
• Greer, S. (2000). The Margin of Appreciation: Interpretation and Discretion under the European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
• Greer, S. C. (2006). The Jurisprudence. In The European Convention on Human Rights achievements, problems and prospects (pp. 231–277). Cambridge [UK]; New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&AN=185832
• Greer, S. (2015). Is the Prohibition against Torture, Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment Really ‘Absolute’ in International Human Rights Law? Human Rights Law Review, 15(1), 101–137. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngu035
• Legg, A. (2012). The margin of appreciation in international human rights law: Deference and proportionality (1st ed). Oxford, U.K: Oxford University Press.
• Lemmens, K. (2018). The Margin of Appreciation in the ECtHR’s Case Law: A European Version of the Levels of Scrutiny Doctrine? European Journal of Law Reform, 20(2–3), 78–96. https://doi.org/10.5553/EJLR/138723702018020002005
• Macdonald, R. S. J., Matscher, F., & Petzold, H. (Eds.). (1993). The European system for the protection of human rights. Dordrecht ; Boston: M. Nijhoff.
• Smith, Rhona K. M. (2003). Goodwin v. United Kingdom App. No. 28957/95 and I. v. United Kingdom. App. No. 25680/94. The American Journal of International Law, 97(3), 659–664. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/3109851
• Spielmann, D. (2012). Allowing the Right Margin: The European Court of Human Rights and The National Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: Waiver or Subsidiarity of European Review? Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 14, 381–418. https://doi.org/10.5235/152888712805580570
• The Council of Europe. (1960). Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights (Vol. 2).
• Türmen, R. (2002). Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi Açısından Temel Hak ve Özgürlüklerin Kapsamı ve Sınırlamaları. Yargıtay Dergisi, 28(1–2), 192–213.
• ECtHR Cases B. v. France, Application No 13343/87, Judgment of 25 March 1992.
• Case Relating to Certain Aspects of the Laws on the Use of Languages in Education in Belgium v. Belgium (Merits), Application No 474/62; 1677/62; 1691/62; 1769/63; 1994/63; 2126/64, Judgment of 23 July 1968.
• Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, Application No 28957/95, Judgment of 11 July 2002.
• Cossey v. the United Kingdom, Application No 10843/84, Judgment of 27 September 1990.
• Grant v. the United Kingdom, Application No 32570/03, Judgment of 23 May 2006.
• Greece v. the United Kingdom, Application No 176/56, Judgment of 26 September 1958.
• Hämäläinen v. Finland, Application No 37359/09, Judgment of 16 July 2014.
• L. v. Lithuania, Application No 27527/03, Judgment of 11 September 2007.
• Lawless v. Ireland, Application No 332/57, Judgment of 1 July 1961.
• Rees v. the United Kingdom, Application No 9532/81, Judgment of 17 October 1986.
• Sheffield and Horsham v. the United Kingdom, Application No 31–32/1997/815–816/1018–1019, Judgment of 30 July 1998.
• I. v. the United Kingdom, Application No 25680/94, Judgment of 11 July 2002.
• X, Y and Z v. the United Kingdom, Application No 21830/93, Judgment of 22 April 1997.