An Analysis of the Attribution of Acts of Private Persons to the State in the European Court of Human Rights

Öz

This study examines approach of the European Court of Human Rights’ approach to the issue of attribution, one of the main conditions for establishing state responsibility under international law. The study focuses on the relationship between the law of international responsibility and the law of human rights within the context of attribution. Therefore, the paper explains the pri-mary meaning of attribution under international law and, following a detailed analysis of the Court’s case law, provides a comparative analysis with international law. The Court’s jurisprudence on attribution is divided into two parts: the doctrine of positive obligations and the inter-pretation of the concept of governmental organization, especially in terms of the conduct of state companies. The results indicate that the Court has not adopted lex specialis on attribution, and its judgments largely conform to general international law. The paper outlines in detail the rea-sons for this conclusion and the Court’s application corresponding to certain rules under inter-national law. On the other hand, the Court has refrained from using the term “attribution.” In-stead, the Court has been determining which entities would be regarded as state organs in light of the term “non-governmental organization,” as defined in Article 34 of the Convention. There-fore, the Court’s discomfort with the meaning of “non-governmental organization,” which per-tains to the Convention, has caused the Court to adopt its own interpretation of the term and, in some judgments, to focus on the private entity itself rather than the act claimed to be unlawful.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• The European Court of Human Rights
• Attribution
• State responsibility
• Positive obligation
• Horizontal effect
• State corporations
• State-owned entities

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi İçtihadında Özel Kişilerin Eyleminin Devlete Atfedilmesi Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Öz

Bu çalışmada uluslararası hukukta devletin sorumluluğunun temel koşullarından biri olan atfedilmeye Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin yaklaşımı incelenmiştir. Çalışma bu bakımdan atfedilme konusu özelinde uluslararası sorumluluk hukuku ile insan hakları hukuku arasındaki ilişkiye odaklanmıştır. Bu nedenle öncelikle uluslararası hukukta atfedilmenin ne anlama geldiği açıklanmış, daha sonra AİHM içtihadı incelenerek uluslararası hukuk ile karşılaştırmalı bir analiz yapılmıştır. AİHM’nin atfedilme konusundaki içtihadı pozitif yükümlülük doktrini ve özellikle devlet şirketlerinin eylemleri bakımından hükümet kuruluşu kavramının yorumlanması şeklinde ikiye ayrılmaktadır. Vardığımız sonuca göre, AİHM atfedilme konusunda lex specialis benimsemiş değildir ve kararları büyük ölçüde genel uluslararası hukuk ile uyumludur. Çalışmada bunun gerekçelerine ve AİHM uygulamasının genel uluslararası hukukta hangi kurallara karşılık geldiğine ayrıntılı biçimde yer verilmiştir. Bununla birlikte AİHM atfedilme ifadesini genellikle kullanmamakta ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nin 34. maddesi bağlamında hükümetdışı kuruluş kavramından hareketle, hangi birimlerin devlet organı sayılacağını belirlemektedir. Bu nedenle AİHS’ye özgü bir kavram olan hükümetdışı kuruluş kavramı, AİHM’nin kendi özel yorumunu yapmasına imkân tanımakta ve bazı kararlarda hukuka aykırı olduğu öne sürülen eylem yerine genel bir biçimde özel kişinin kendisine odaklanılmasına yol açmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi
• Atfedilme
• Devletin sorumluluğu
• Pozitif yükümlülük
• Yatay etki
• Devlet şirketleri
• Kamu iktisadi teşebbüsleri

Kaynakça

1. Acer Y ve Kaya İ, Uluslararası Hukuk (Seçkin 2020) google scholar
2. Akkutay Aİ, Diplomatik Koruma ve İnsan Hakları İlişkisi (Adalet Yayınevi 2013) google scholar
3. Alisic and Others v Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, App No 60642/08 (ECtHR 16 July 2014) google scholar
4. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro) (Judgment) [2007] ICJ Rep 43. google scholar
5. Azaklı Köse M, Devletin Uluslararası Yatırım Tahkiminde Sorumluluğu (Adalet 2021) google scholar
6. Azaklı Köse M, ‘Uluslararası Hukukta Eylemin Devlete Atfedilmesi ile Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi Çerçevesinde Ülke Dışı Yetki Arasındaki İlişki’ (2021) 41(1) Public and Private International Law Bulletin 261. google scholar
7. Banaszewska DM, ‘Lex Specialis’ in Rüdiger Wolfrum (edn), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford Public International Law 2015) Erişim Tarihi 25 Haziran 2021. google scholar
8. Bodansky D and Crook JR, ‘Introduction and Overview’ (2002) 96(4) American Journal of International Law 773. google scholar

9. Boon KE, ‘Are control tests fit for the future? The slippage problem in attribution doctrines’, (2014) 15(2) Melbourne Journal of International Law 1-48. google scholar
10. Broniowski v Poland App No 31443/96 (ECtHR, 22 June 2004) google scholar
11. Buzescu v Romania, App No 61302/00 (ECtHR, 24 May 2005) google scholar
12. Case “Relating to Certain Aspects of the Laws On the Use of Languages in Education in Belgium” v Belgium (Merits) App No 1474/62 (ECtHR, 23 July 1968) google scholar
13. Charney JI, ‘State Responsibility’ (1998) 271 Recueil des cours 237. google scholar
14. Chirwa DM, ‘The doctrine of state responsibility as a potential means of holding private actors accountable for human rights’ (2004) 5(1) Melbourne Journal of International Law, 1-36. google scholar
15. Christenson GA, ‘The Doctrine of Attribution in State Responsibility’ in Richard Lillich (edn) International Law of State Responsibility for Injuries to Aliens (University Press of Virginia 1983) 321. google scholar
16. Condorelli L and Kress C, ‘The Rules of Attribution: General Considerations’ in James Crawford ve Alain Pellet (edn) The Law of International Responsibility (Oxford University Press 2010) 221. google scholar
17. Cooperativa Agricola Slobozia-Hanesei v Moldova, App No 39745/02 (ECtHR, 3 April 2007) google scholar
18. Costello-Roberts v the United Kingdom, App No 13134/87 (ECtHR, 25 March 1993) google scholar
19. Crawford J, ‘Revising the Draft Articles on State Responsibility’ (1999) 10(2) European Journal of International Law 435. google scholar
20. Crawford J, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (8th edn, Oxford University Press 2012) google scholar
21. Crawford J, State Responsibility: The General Part (Cambridge University Press 2013) google scholar
22. Crawford J ve Keene A, ‘The Structure of State Responsibility under the European Convention on Human Rights’ in Anne van Aaken and Iulia Motoc (edn) The European Convention on Human Rights and General International Law (Oxford University Press, 2018) 178. google scholar
23. Dal U, Uluslararası Sorumluluk Hukukunda Uluslararası Hukuka Aykırı Eylemin Devlete Atfedilmesi (İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi 2019) google scholar
24. David E, ’Primary and Secondary Rules’ in James Crawford ve Alain Pellet (edn) The Law of International Responsibility (Oxford University Press 2010) 27. google scholar
25. Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with commentaries, (2001) 2 (Part Two) Yearbook of the International Law Commission Erişim Tarihi 25 Haziran 2021. google scholar
26. EDF (Services) Limited v Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13, Award, 8 October 2009 (Italaw, 2009) https://www.italaw.com/cases/375 Erişim Tarihi 25 Haziran 2021. google scholar
27. Emilio Agustm Maffezini v The Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Decision on Jurisdiction, 25 January 2000 (Italaw, 2000) Erişim Tarihi 25 Haziran 2021. google scholar
28. EmilioAgustm Maffezini v The Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Award, 13 November 2000 (Italaw, 2000) Erişim Tarihi 25 Haziran 2021. google scholar
29. Erkiner HH, Devletin Haksız Fiilden Kaynaklanan Uluslararası Sorumluluğu, (Onikilevha Yayıncılık 2010) google scholar
30. Evaldsson and Others v Sweden, App No 75252/01 (ECtHR, 13 February 2007) google scholar
31. Evans M, ‘State Responsibility and the European Convention on Human Rights’ in Malgosia Fitzmaurice and Dan Sarooshi (edn) Issues of State Responsibility Before International Judicial Institutions (Hart Publishing, 2004) 139. google scholar
32. Farrior S and Clagett B, ‘State Responsibility for Human Rights Abuses by Non-State Actors’ (1998) 92 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law) 299. google scholar
33. Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising From Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission , Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi. UN Doc A/CN.4/L.682 google scholar
34. François J ve Kombe A, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi Kapsamında Pozitif Yükümlülükler Avrupa Konseyi İnsan Hakları El Kitapları No: 7 (1. Baskı, Avrupa Konseyi 2008) google scholar
35. Frouville OD, ‘Private Individuals’ in James Crawford, Allain Pellet and Simon Olleson (edn) The Law of International Responsibility (Oxford University Press 2010) 257. google scholar
36. Garciandia R, ‘State responsibility and positive obligations in the European Court of Human Rights: The contribution of the ICJ in advancing towards more judicial integration’ (2020) 33(1) Leiden Journal of International Law, 177. google scholar
37. Gourgourinis A, ‘General/Particular International Law and Primary/Secondary Rules: Unitary Terminology of a Fragmented System’ (2011) 22(4) European Journal of International Law 993. google scholar
38. Grigoryev and Kakaurova v Russia, App No 13820/04 (EctHR, 12 April 2007) google scholar
39. Hokkanen v Finland App No 19823/92 (ECtHR, 24 August 1994) google scholar
40. Impact of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility (British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2007) Erişim Tarihi 25 Haziran 2021. google scholar
41. Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v Turkey App No. 40998/98 (EctHR, 13 December 2007) google scholar
42. Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, Award, 6 November 2008 (Italaw, 2008) https://www.italaw.com/cases/587 Erişim Tarihi 25 Haziran 2021. google scholar
43. Kaya İ, Uluslararası Hukukta Temel Belgeler (Seçkin 2020) google scholar
44. Kaya T, ‘Uluslararası Hukuk Bölünüyor mu?’ (2012) 61(1) Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 149. google scholar
45. Kayhan AK, Uluslararası Hukukta Atmosferin Korunması ve Devletlerin Sorumluluğu, (Onikilevha Yayıncılık 2017) google scholar
46. Kedikli U, Uluslararası Terörizm ve Devlet Sorumluluğu (Nobel Yayıncılık 2013) google scholar
47. Kees A, ‘Responsibility of States for Private Actors’ in Rüdiger Wolfrum (edn) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford Public International Law 2011) Erişim Tarihi 25 Haziran 2021. google scholar
48. Khachatryan v Armenia App No 31761/04 (ECtHR, 1 December 2009) google scholar
49. Kolb R, The International Law of State Responsibility: An Introduction (Edward Elgar Publishing 2017) google scholar
50. Koskenniemi M and Leino P, ‘Fragmentation of International Law? Postmodern Anxieties’ (2002) 15(3) Leiden Journal of International Law 553. google scholar
51. Kotov v Russia App No 54522/00 (ECtHR, 3 April 2012) google scholar
52. Kreutz K, State Responsibility in the International Legal Order: A Critical Appraisal (Cambridge University Press 2020) google scholar
53. Kurtdarcan BR, ‘Uluslararası Sorumluluk Hukuku Kapsamında Devletin de Facto Organı Kavramı Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme’ (2016) 11(143-144) Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 57. google scholar
54. Lillich RB, ‘The Current Status of the Law of State Responsibility for Injuries to Aliens’ (1979) 73 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law) 244. google scholar
55. Liseytseva and Maslov v Russia App No 39483/05 ve 40527/10 (ECtHR, 9 October 2014) google scholar
56. Lisyanskiy v Ukraine, App No 17899/02 (ECtHR, 4 April 2006) google scholar
57. Lopez-Ostra v Spain App No 16798/90, (ECtHR, 9 December 1994) google scholar
58. Loup M, ‘The Content of State Responsibility under the European Convention on Human Rights -Some Reflections on the Court’s Approach to General International Law on State Responsibility’ in Samantha Besson and Matthieu Loup (edn) International Responsibility: Essays in Law, History and Philosophy (Schulthess Verlag 2017) 139. google scholar
59. Marks S and Azizi F, ‘Responsibility for Violations of Human Rights Obligations: International Mechanisms’ in James Crawford ve Alain Pellet (edn) The Law of International Responsibility (Oxford University Press 2010) 725. google scholar
60. McCorquodale R, ‘Overlegalizing Silences: Human Rights and Nonstate Actors’, (2002) 96 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law) 384. google scholar
61. McCorquodale R, ‘Impact on State Responsibility’ in Menno T. Kamminga and Martin Scheinin (edn) The Impact of Human Rights Law on General International Law (Oxford University Press 2009) 235. Meron T, ‘State Responsibility for Violations of Human Rights’ (1989) 83 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law) 372. google scholar
62. Metin Y, ‘Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesinin Yaşamın ve Sağlığın Korunması ile İlgili Olarak Taraf Devletlere Yüklediği Pozitif Yükümlülükler’ (2010) 7(27) Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi 111. google scholar
63. Milanovic M, ‘Special Rules of Attribution of Conduct in International Law’ (2020) 96 International Law Studies 295. google scholar
64. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14. google scholar
65. Momtaz D, ‘State Organs and Entities Empowered to Exercise Elements of Governmental Authority’ in James Crawford ve Alain Pellet (edn) The Law of International Responsibility (Oxford University Press 2010) 237. google scholar
66. Mykhaylenky and Others v Ukraine App No 35091/02 (ECtHR, 30 November 2004) google scholar
67. Novoseletskiy v Ukraine App No 47148/99 (ECtHR, 27 February 2005) (extracts) google scholar O’Keeffe v Ireland App No 35810/09 (ECtHR, 28 January 2014) google scholar
68. Palchetti P, ‘De Facto Organs of a State’ in Rüdiger Wolfrum (edn) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford Public International Law 2017) Erişim Tarihi 25 Haziran 2021. google scholar
69. Pauwelyn J, ‘Fragmentation of International Law’ in Rüdiger Wolfrum (edn), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford Public International Law 2006) Erişim Tarihi 25 Haziran 2021. google scholar
70. Pellet A, ‘The ILC Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts and Related Texts’ in James Crawford ve Alain Pellet (edn) The Law of International Responsibility (Oxford University Press 2010) 75. google scholar
71. Pirim CZ, ‘Uluslararası Sorumluluk Hukukunda Devletlerin Ağırlaştırılmış Sorumluluğu: Kuramsal Bir Değerlendirme’ (2012) 32(2) Public and Private International Law Bulletin 147. google scholar
72. Pirim CZ, Devletlerin Uluslararası Sorumluluğa Halefiyeti, (Turhan Kitabevi 2016) google scholar
73. Poroy MA ‘Yatay İlişkilerde Pozitif Yükümlülük’ (2006) 80(3) İstanbul Barosu Dergisi, 1005. google scholar
74. Prosecutor v Tadic (Judgment), ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999) Erişim Tarihi 25 Haziran 2021. google scholar
75. Radio France and Others v France App No 53984/00 (ECtHR, 23 September 2003) (extracts) google scholar
76. Regent Company v Ukraine App No 773/03 (ECtHR, 3 April 2008) google scholar
77. R. Kacapor and Others v Serbia App No 2269/06, 3041/06, 3042/06, 3043/06, 3045/06 and 3046/06 (ECtHR, 15 January 2008) google scholar
78. Romashov v Ukraine App No 67534/01 (ECtHR, 27 July 2004) google scholar
79. Rosenstock R, ‘The ILC and State Responsibility’ (2002) 96(4) American Journal of International Law 792. google scholar
80. Roucounas E, ‘Non-State Actors: Areas of International Responsibility in Need of Further Exploration’ in Maurizio Ragazzi (edn) International Responsibility Today: Essays in Memory of Oscar Schachter (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2005) 391. google scholar
81. Schönsteiner J, ‘Attribution of State Responsibility for Actions or Omissions of State-Owned Enterprises in Human Rights Matters’ (2019) 40(4) University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 895. google scholar
82. Sheeran S, ‘The relationship of international human rights law and general international law: hermeneutic constraint, or pushing the boundaries?’ in Scott Sheeran and Nigel Rodley (edn) Routledge Handbook of Human Rights Law (Routledge 2013) 79 google scholar
83. Simma B ve Pulkowski D, ‘Of Planets and the Universe: Self-Contained Regimes in International Law’ (2006) 17(3) European Journal of International Law 483. google scholar
84. Simma B ve Pulkowski D, ‘Leges-Speciales and Self-Contained Regimes’ in James Crawford, Allain Pellet and Simon Olleson (eds), The Law of International Responsibility (Oxford University Press 2010) 139. google scholar
85. Storck v Germany, App No 61603/00 (ECtHR, 16 June 2005) google scholar
86. Sunay R, ‘İnsan Haklarının Yatay Etkisi ve Devletin Sorumluluğu’ (2015) 23(1) Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 9. google scholar
87. Sturma P, ‘State Responsibility and the European Convention on Human Rights’ Erişim Tarihi 25 Haziran 2021. google scholar
88. Tams CJ, ‘Law-making in complex processes: The World Court and the modern law of State responsibility’ in Christine Chinkin and Freya Baetens (edn) Sovereignty, Statehood and State Responsibility: Essays in Honour of James Crawford (Cambridge University Press 2015) 287. google scholar
89. Tepe v Turkey App No 27244/95 (ECtHR, 9 May 2003) google scholar
90. Tezcan D, Erdem MR, Sancakdar O ve Önok RM, İnsan Hakları El Kitabı (8. Baskı, Seçkin 2019) google scholar
91. United Nations Legislative Series Materials on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (United Nations 2012) Erişim Tarihi 25 Haziran 2021. google scholar
92. Uzun E, Milletlerarası Hukuka Aykırı Eylemlerinden Dolayı Devletin Sorumluluğu (Seçkin Yayıncılık 2016) google scholar
93. VgT Verein Gegen Tierfabriken v Switzerland App No 24699/94 (ECtHR, 28 June 2001) google scholar
94. Wolfrum R, ‘State Responsibility for Private Actors: An Old Problem of Renewed Relevance’ in Maurizio Ragazzi (edn) International Responsibility Today: Essays in Memory of Oscar Schachter (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2005) 423. google scholar
95. Wos v Poland, App No 22860/02, (ECtHR, 8 June 2006) google scholar
96. Young MA (edn) Regime Interaction in International Law: Facing Fragmentation (Cambridge University Press, 2012). google scholar
97. Young MA, ‘Fragmentation, Regime Interaction and Sovereignty’ in Christine Chinkin and Freya Baetens (edn) Sovereignty, Statehood and State Responsibility: Essays in Honour of James Crawford (Cambridge University Press 2015) 71. google scholar