Türkiye'de Bireysel Başvuru Yolu ve Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasa Mahkemesi'nin Paradigma Değişimine Etkisi

Öz

Bu makalenin amacı, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasa Mahkemesi'nin neden bu bireysel başvuru yolunu benimsediğini ve bu başvuru yolunun Anayasa Mahkemesi'nde nasıl bir paradigma değişikliğine yol açtığını açıklamaktır. Çalışmada, bu amaçlara ulaşmak için doküman analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Türkiye’de bireysel başvuru, insan haklarının daha etkin bir şekilde korunması ve Türkiye aleyhine Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’ne (AİHM) yapılan başvuruların azaltılması amacıyla yürürlüğe girmiştir. Toplumsal talep ve uluslararası baskılar da bu hukuki yolun hayata geçirilmesinde etkili olmuştur. Öte yandan bireysel başvuru, bu amaçların ötesinde, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasa Mahkemesi’nde baskın ideolojik temelli yaklaşımdan hak temelli paradigmaya geçişe yol açmıştır. Bu araştırma, bireysel başvuru yolunun Türkiye'nin Anayasa Mahkemesi üzerindeki önemli etkisini vurgulayarak kendi alanına özgün bir katkı sunmaktadır. Hukuki mekanizmanın insan haklarını nasıl güçlendirdiğini ve ülkenin en yüksek yargı organında yapısal değişimi nasıl tetiklediğini yenilikçi bir şekilde incelemektedir. Çalışma, hukuki analizi kurumsal teori ile birleştirerek, Türkiye'nin anayasal yapısı bağlamında hukuki reformlar ile kurumsal dönüşüm arasındaki karmaşık ilişkiyi anlamaya yönelik yeni bakış açıları sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• bireysel başvuru
• Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasa Mahkemesi
• ideoloji temelli yaklaşım
• hak temelli yaklaşım

The Individual Application Remedy in Türkiye and Its Impact on the Paradigm Shift of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye

Öz

The purpose of this paper is to explain why the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye adopted this remedy and how this remedy led to a paradigm shift in the Constitutional Court. This study uses a document analysis approach, covering of the period 1989-2023, to achieve the aims of the study. Individual application in Türkiye has been put into effect to protect human rights more effectively and to reduce the applications made to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) against Türkiye. Social demand and international pressures were also effective in the enactment of this legal remedy. On the other hand, individual application has also led to a paradigm shift, from the dominant paradigm, the ideological-based approach, to the right-based paradigm, in the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye beyond these purposes. This research offers a unique contribution to its field by highlighting the significant impact of individual application remedies on Türkiye's Constitutional Court operations. It innovatively explores how this legal mechanism strengthens human rights and drives structural change within the nation's highest judiciary. By combining legal analysis with institutional theory, the study provides new insights into the intricate relationship between legal reforms and institutional transformation, particularly in the underexplored context of Türkiye's constitutional framework.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• individual application
• Constitutional Court of Türkiye
• ideological-based paradigm
• right-based paradigm

Kaynakça

1. Arslan, Z. (2002). Conflicting paradigms: Political rights in the Turkish Constitutional Court. Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies, 11(1), 9-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10669920120122225
2. Arslan, Z. (2017). The conference under the joint project on supporting the individual application to the constitutional court in Turkey on ‘The legal remedy of intermediate appeal and the individual application before the constitutional court. https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/en/president/presidents-speeches/welcome-address-conference-on-the-legal-remedy-of-intermediate-appeal-and-the-individual-application-before-the-constitutional-court/ (Accessed Date: 7 February 2024).
3. Arslan, Z. (2022a). An Evaluation on the past, present and future of individual application in Türkiye. https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/en/president/presidents-speeches/an-evaluation-on-the-past-present-and-future-of-individual-application-in-turkiye/ (Accessed Date: 7 February 2024).
4. Arslan, Z. (2022b). Anayasa Mahkemesinin temel hakların korunmasındaki rolü konulu panelin açış konuşması. https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/tr/baskan/konusmalar/anayasa-mahkemesinin-temel-haklarin-korunmasindaki-rolu (Accessed Date: 7 February 2024).
5. Arslan, Z. (2022c). Swearing-in ceremony of justice Mr. Muhterem İnce. https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/en/president/presidents-speeches/opening-address-swearing-in-ceremony-of-justice-mr-muhterem-ince/ (Accessed Date: 7 February 2024).
6. Arslan, Z. (2023). The rights-based interpretation and the Constitutional Court of Türkiye. https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/en/president/presidents-speeches/the-rights-based-interpretation-and-the-constitutional-court-of-turkiye (Accessed Date: 7 February 2024).
7. Aydin, E. (2017). Understanding the role of NGOs for legitimising inclusion of sexual minorities in Turkey and the UK: An institutional perspective [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Brunel University.
8. Bailey, K. D. (1994). Methods of social research. Simon and Schuster.

9. Boxenbaum, E., & Arora-Jonsson, S. (2017). Isomorphism, diffusion and decoupling: Concept evolution and theoretical challenges. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence, & R. E. Meyer (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 79-104, 2nd Edition). SAGE Publications.
10. Chakim, M. L. (2019). A comparative perspective on constitutional complaint: Discussing models, procedures, and decisions. Constitutional Review, 5(1), 96-133.
11. Council of Europe. (2023). Joint project on supporting the individual application to the Constitutional Court in Turkey. https://www.coe.int/en/web/ankara/joint-project-on-supporting-the-individual-application-to-the-constitutional-court-in-turkey (Accessed Date: 7 February 2024).
12. Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W. R. (2002). Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 43-56. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2002.6283388
13. Daneliene, I. (2021). Individual access to constitutional justice in Lithuania: The potential within the newly established model of the individual constitutional complaint. Revista de Derecho Político, (111), 281-312.
14. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147- 160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
15. Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in Europe and the United States: An institutional-stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 47-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00582.x
16. Ekinci, H., & Saglam, M. (2012). 66 soruda Anayasa Mahkemesine bireysel başvuru. T.C. Anayasa Mahkemesi.
17. Erdem, F. H. (2017). Türkiye’de ‘ideolojik devlet’ gölgesinde yargı ve bağımsızlığı sorunu. Anayasa Mahkemesi (Ed.), Anayasa Mahkemesinin kuruluşunun 55. yılı anısına 55 Yıl 55 makale içinde (ss. 1047-1067) Anayasa Mahkemesi Yayınları.
18. Erdinc, T. (2015). Karşılaştırmalı olarak Türk Anayasa Mahkemesine bireysel başvuru hakkı (Anayasa şikâyeti). Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi, 6(20), 87-138.
19. European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission). (2011). Study on individual access to constitutional justice adopted by the Venice Commission at its 85th plenary session. https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2010)039rev (Accessed Date: 7 February 2024).
20. European Court of Human Rights. (2022). ECHR overview 1959-2021. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Overview_19592021_ENG (Accessed Date: 7 February 2024).
21. European Court of Human Rights. (2023). Violations by article and by state. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Stats_violation_1959_2022_ENG (Accessed Date: 7 February 2024).
22. European Court of Human Rights. (2024). Analysis of statistics 2023. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/stats-analysis-2023-eng (Accessed Date: 7 February 2024).
23. Fendoglu, H. T. (2013). Kamu denetçiliği (Ombudsmanlık) ve Anayasa Mahkemesine bireysel başvuru hakkı. Ankara Barosu Dergisi, (4), 23-49.
24. Gokalp Aras, N. E., Kabadayi, Ozeren, E., & Aydin, E. (2021). Right to health and access to health-care services for refugees in Turkey. Journal of Services Marketing, 35(7), 962-976. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-06-2020-0256
25. Grix, J. (2001). Demystifying postgraduate research. Bloomsbury Academic.
26. Inceoglu, S. (2013). Hak ve özgürlükleri sınırlama ve güvence rejimi. Sibel Inceoglu (Ed.), İnsan Hakları Avrupa Sözleşmesi ve Anayasa-Anayasa Mahkemesine bireysel başvuru kapsamında bir inceleme içinde (ss. 23-52). Şen Printing House.
27. Kaya, E. (2016). Anayasa Mahkemesinin muhafazakar-liberal ikilemi. Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi, (27), 181-214.
28. Keskinsoy, Ö., Demir, H. S. & Kaya, S. B. (2020). İfade özgürlüğü ekseninde Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin hukuku değiştirme sorunu. Erciyes Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(1), 139-190.
29. Kostova, T. (1997). Country institutional profiles: Concept and measurement. Academy of Management Proceedings, (1), 180-184. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.1997.4981338
30. Martinez, R. J., & Dacin, M. T. (1999). Efficiency motives and normative forces: Combining transactions costs and institutional logic. Journal of Management, 25(1), 75-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80004-X
31. Mogalakwe, M. (2006). The use of documentary research methods in social research. African Sociological Review, 10(1), 221-230.
32. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678
33. Osinubi, I. S. (2020). The three pillars of institutional theory and IFRS implementation in Nigeria. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 10(4), 575-599. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-07-2019-0139
34. Ozbudun, E. (2007). Türk Anayasa Mahkemesinin yargısal aktivizmi ve siyasal elitlerin tepkisi. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 62(03), 257-268. https://doi.org/10.1501/SBFder_0000002041
35. Payne G., & Payne, J. (2004). Key concepts in social research. SAGE Publications.
36. Republic of Türkiye Minister of Justice. (2023). Yıllara göre AİHS ihlal sayıları (1995-2023). https://inhak.adalet.gov.tr/Resimler/Dokuman/60220241010377-%20YILLARA%20G%C3%96RE%20A%C4%B0HS%20%C4%B0HLAL%20SAYILARI%20(1995%20-%202023).pdf (Accessed Date: 7 February 2024).
37. Scott, J. (1990). A matter of record: Documentary sources in social research. Polity Press.
38. Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. Sage Publications.
39. Tezcan, D., Erdem, M. R., Sancakdar, O., & Onok, R. M. (2011). İnsan hakları el kitabı. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
40. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye. (1989). E.1989/1, K.1989/12. https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/tr/kararlar-bilgi-bankasi/ (Accessed Date: 7 February 2024).
41. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye. (2008). E.2008/16, K.2008/116. https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/tr/kararlar-bilgi-bankasi/ (Accessed Date: 7 February 2024).
42. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye. (2014a). Case of Celalettin Aşçıoğlu, App. No: 2013/1436. https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/tr/kararlar-bilgi-bankasi/ (Accessed Date: 7 February 2024).
43. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye. (2014b). Case of Tuğba Arslan [GK], App. No: 2014/256. https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/tr/kararlar-bilgi-bankasi/ (Accessed Date: 7 February 2024).
44. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye. (2016). Case of Gemak Gemi İnşaat Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş., App. No: 2013/7698. https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/tr/kararlar-bilgi-bankasi/ (Accessed Date: 7 February 2024).
45. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye. (2018a). Case of Sara Akgül [GK], App. No: 2015/269. https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/tr/kararlar-bilgi-bankasi/ (Accessed Date: 7 February 2024).
46. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye. (2018b). Case of B.S., App. No: 2015/8491. https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/tr/kararlar-bilgi-bankasi/ (Accessed Date: 7 February 2024).
47. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye. (2021). Case of Ömer Faruk Gergerlioğlu [GK], App. No: 2019/10634. https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/tr/kararlar-bilgi-bankasi/ (Accessed Date: 7 February 2024).
48. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye. (2022a). Case of Ali Kuş [GK], App. No: 2017/27822. https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/tr/kararlar-bilgi-bankasi/ (Accessed Date: 7 February 2024).
49. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye. (2022b). Case of Figen Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu and others, App. No: 2016/39759. https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/tr/kararlar-bilgi-bankasi/ (Accessed Date: 7 February 2024).
50. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye. (2022c). Case of Leyla Güven [GK], App. No: 2018/26689. https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/tr/kararlar-bilgi-bankasi/ (Accessed Date: 7 February 2024).
51. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye. (2022d). Case of Enis Aras [GK], App. No: 2018/36485. https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/tr/kararlar-bilgi-bankasi/ (Accessed Date: 7 February 2024).
52. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye. (2023). Individual application. https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/en/individual-application (Accessed Date: 7 February 2024).
53. Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform 1880-1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(1), 22-39. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392383
54. Trevino, L. J., Thomas, D. E., & Cullen, J. (2008). The three pillars of institutional theory and FDI Latin America: An institutionalization process. International Business Review, 17(1), 118-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2007.10.002
55. Yazici, S. (2017). Kuruluşundan bu yana Türk Anayasa Mahkemesinin değişen rolü. Anayasa Mahkemesi (Ed.), Anayasa Mahkemesinin kuruluşunun 55. yılı anısına 55 yıl 55 makale içinde (ss. 1305-1331). Anayasa Mahkemesi Yayınları.
56. Yilmazoglu, Y. E., & Perdecioglu, I. E. (2021). Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası (Gerekçeli). Anayasa Mahkemesi Yayınları.
57. Yiu, D., & Makino, S. (2002). The choice between joint venture and wholly owned subsidiary: An institutional perspective. Organization Science, 13(6), 667-683. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.6.667.494