Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Standartları Işığında Örgütlü Suçlulukta Üyelik Sınırının Belirlenmesi

Öz

Örgütlü suçlulukla mücadelenin en geniş etkili aracı, örgüte üye olma suç tipidir. Bu çalışma, üyelik sınırının nerede durması gerektiği sorusunu uluslararası insan hakları hukuku normları, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi içtihadı ve uluslararası denetim mekanizmalarının belgeleri üzerinden ele almaktadır. İnceleme, birbirinden ayrı işleyen iki normatif katmanı karşılaştırmaktadır. Birinci katman, Sınıraşan Örgütlü Suçlara Karşı Birleşmiş Milletler Sözleşmesi, Avrupa Konseyi Terörizmin Önlenmesi Sözleşmesi ile Ek Protokolü ve Avrupa Birliği ikincil mevzuatından oluşan cezalandırma acquis'idir. İkinci katman, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi çerçevesinde işleyen insan hakları denetimidir. Denetimin ekseni Sözleşme'nin 7. maddesidir; 6, 8, 10 ve 11. maddeler yalnızca bu eksenin doğurduğu sonuçlar bakımından ve arka plan olarak ele alınmaktadır. Çalışmanın merkezî tespiti bir normatif asimetriye ilişkindir. Bağlayıcı uluslararası metinler örgütsel ceza sorumluluğunu istikrarlı biçimde fiil esaslı katılma ile açık bir bilme unsuru üzerinden kurmakta, salt pasif mensubiyetin suç sayılmasını ise hiçbir metin zorunlu kılmamaktadır. Üyeliğin statü olarak tanımı hiçbir bağlayıcı metinde yer almamaktadır. Bu boşluk nedeniyle üyelik sınırı önceden yasama yoluyla değil, sonradan yargısal denetim yoluyla çizilmektedir. Çalışma buradan hareketle iki alt iddia geliştirmektedir. Birincisi, statü esaslı bir tipiklikte öngörülebilirlik testinin konusu yapısal olarak ortadan kalkmaktadır. İkincisi, manevi unsurun kanunilik denetimine taşınması dogmatik bir tercih değil, maddi unsurun statüye indirgenmesinin zorunlu sonucudur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Örgüt üyeliği
• Kanunilik ilkesi
• Statü suçu
• Öngörülebilirlik
• Manevi unsur

Determining the Boundary of Membership in Organized Crime in Light of International Human Rights Standards

Öz

Membership in a criminal or terrorist organisation is the broadest-reaching instrument in the repression of organised crime. This study asks where the boundary of membership ought to be drawn, and pursues that question through the norms of international human rights law, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, and the documents of international monitoring mechanisms. The analysis contrasts two normative layers that operate separately from one another. The first is the criminalisation acquis, comprising the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism together with its Additional Protocol, and European Union secondary legislation. The second is the human rights review conducted under the European Convention on Human Rights. That review is anchored in Article 7; Articles 6, 8, 10 and 11 are addressed only as background and in so far as they follow from that axis. The central finding concerns a normative asymmetry. The binding international instruments consistently construct organisational criminal liability upon conduct-based participation coupled with an express knowledge requirement, while none of them makes the criminalisation of mere passive affiliation obligatory. A definition of membership as a status appears in no binding instrument. Owing to this lacuna, the boundary of membership is drawn not ex ante by the legislature but ex post by judicial review. On this premise the study advances two subsidiary claims. First, where the offence is defined in terms of status, the foreseeability test is structurally deprived of its object. Second, the displacement of the mental element into the legality review is not a doctrinal preference but the necessary consequence of reducing the actus reus to a status.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Membership in an organisation
• Principle of legality
• Status offence
• Foreseeability
• Mens rea

Kaynakça

1. Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism (Riga, 22 October 2015, CETS No 217) Erişim Tarihi 14 Temmuz 2026.
2. Altıparmak K ve Budak R, ‘Yasak v Türkiye. A Green Light to the Retrospective Application of Criminal Law in Terror Cases’ (Strasbourg Observers, 29 November 2024) Erişim Tarihi 14 Temmuz 2026.
3. Andrijauskaitė A, ‘The Principle of Legality as a Way to Control Sanctioning Content under ECHR’ (RealLaw Blog, 27 October 2021) Erişim Tarihi 24 Haziran 2026.
4. Article 19 ve Turkey Litigation Support Project, Rule 9 Submission in the Işıkırık Group of Cases (March 2020) Erişim Tarihi 11 Haziran 2026.
5. Artuk ME, Gökcen A, Alşahin ME ve Çakır K, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (16. Baskı, Adalet Yayınevi 2022).
6. Ashworth A ve Zedner L, Preventive Justice (Oxford University Press 2014).
7. Asp P, ‘Preventionism and Criminalization of Nonconsummate Offences’ iç Ashworth A, Zedner L ve Tomlin P (ed), Prevention and the Limits of the Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2013) 23-46.
8. Carvalho H, The Preventive Turn in Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2017).

9. Consultation of the Parties to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, Thematic Assessment Report on the Implementation of Article 2 of the Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism (COP(2023)01, 21 November 2023) Erişim Tarihi 11 Haziran 2026.
10. Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime [2008] OJ L300/42 Erişim Tarihi 21 Temmuz 2026.
11. Council of Europe, ‘Committee of Ministers adopts the decision to open the Protocol amending the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism’ (Council of Europe, 10 December 2025) Erişim Tarihi 11 Haziran 2026.
12. Council of Europe, ‘The 2005 Warsaw Convention and its Additional Protocol’ (Council of Europe) Erişim Tarihi 18 Haziran 2026.
13. Council of Europe, Explanatory Report to the Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism (CETS No 217, 22 October 2015) Erişim Tarihi 9 Haziran 2026.
14. Council of Europe, Explanatory Report to the Protocol amending the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism (CETS No 231, Strasbourg, 26 May 2026) Erişim Tarihi 18 Haziran 2026.
15. Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending Council Decision 2005/671/JHA [2017] OJ L88/6 Erişim Tarihi 9 Haziran 2026.
16. Eren CS, İfade Özgürlüğü Bağlamında Terör Örgütü Üyeliği Suçu (Seçkin Yayınevi 2020).
17. European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Opinion on Articles 216, 299, 301 and 314 of the Penal Code of Turkey (No 831/2015, CDL-AD(2016)002, 15 March 2016) Erişim Tarihi 14 Temmuz 2026.
18. European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Opinion on the Suspension of the Second Paragraph of Article 83 of the Constitution of Turkey (CDL-AD(2016)027, 2016).
19. European Court of Human Rights, ‘Grand Chamber judgement concerning Türkiye’ (ECHR, 5 May 2026) Erişim Tarihi 11 Haziran 2026.
20. European Court of Human Rights, Factsheet. Terrorism and the European Convention on Human Rights (Council of Europe) Erişim Tarihi 18 Haziran 2026.
21. European Court of Human Rights, Guide on Article 7 of the Convention. No Punishment without Law (Council of Europe, 28 February 2026) Erişim Tarihi 16 Haziran 2026.
22. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Directive (EU) 2017/541 on Combating Terrorism. Impact on Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Publications Office of the European Union 2021) Erişim Tarihi 11 Haziran 2026.
23. Evik VS, 'Silahlı Örgütlenme Suçu' (2006) 1 Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 101-133.
24. İçel K, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (Beta Basım Yayım 2023).
25. Kan SG, 'Silahlı Terör Örgütüne Üye Olma Suçu' (Doktora Tezi, Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü 2024).
26. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘World must define terrorism to protect human rights. UN expert’ (OHCHR, 10 March 2026) Erişim Tarihi 9 Haziran 2026.
27. Özbek VÖ, Doğan K ve Bacaksız P, Türk Ceza Hukuku Özel Hükümler (11. Baskı, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2020).
28. Özgenç İ, Suç Örgütleri (15. Baskı, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2020).
29. Öztürk B, Tezcan D ve Erdem MR (ed), Dijital Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku (3. Baskı, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2024).
30. Panebianco G, ‘The Nulla Poena Sine Culpa Principle in European Courts Case Law’ iç Ruggeri S (ed), Human Rights in European Criminal Law (Springer 2015) 47-76.
31. Peristeridou C, The Principle of Legality in European Criminal Law (Intersentia 2015) Erişim Tarihi 18 Haziran 2026.
32. Protocol amending the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism (Strasbourg, 26 May 2026, CETS No 231) Erişim Tarihi 2 Temmuz 2026.
33. Rychlewska A, ‘The Nullum Crimen Sine Lege Principle in the European Convention of Human Rights. The Actual Scope of Guarantees’ (2016) 36 Polish Yearbook of International Law 163-186 Erişim Tarihi 11 Haziran 2026.
34. Saul B, ‘The Council of Europe’s Proposed Definition of Terrorism Infringes Human Rights’ (EJIL: Talk!, 18 February 2025) Erişim Tarihi 21 Temmuz 2026.
35. Truu M, ‘The European Court of Human Rights and the Principle of Foreseeability (Lex Certa and Stricta). How to Determine Whether an Offence Is Clearly Defined in Criminal Law’ (2022) 31 Juridica International 98-110 Erişim Tarihi 2 Temmuz 2026.
36. United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (kabul 15 Kasım 2000, yürürlük 29 Eylül 2003) 2225 UNTS 209.
37. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, UNTOC Self-Assessment Questionnaire of the United States of America Erişim Tarihi 27 Haziran 2026.
38. United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism (Saul B), Activities in 2025. Highlights (A/HRC/61/52, Annex I, 2026) Erişim Tarihi 11 Haziran 2026.
39. United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism (Saul B), Defining Terrorism to Respect and Protect Human Rights (A/HRC/61/52, 8 January 2026) Erişim Tarihi 2 Temmuz 2026.
40. Zedner L, ‘Terrorizing Criminal Law’ (2014) 8(1) Criminal Law and Philosophy 99-121.
41. AİHM, Advisory Opinion on the concerning the use of the “blanket reference” or “legislation by reference” technique in the definition of an offence and the standards of comparison between the criminal law in force at the time of the commission of the offence and the amended criminal law Requested by the Armenian Constitutional Court, Talep no P16-2019-001 (ECtHR [GC], 29 May 2020).
42. AİHM Akgün v Turkey App no 19699/18 (ECtHR, 20 July 2021).
43. AİHM Ashlarba v Georgia App no 45554/08 (ECtHR, 15 July 2014).
44. AİHM Bădescu and Others v Romania App no 22198/18 and two others (ECtHR, 15 April 2025).
45. AİHM Big Brother Watch and Others v United Kingdom App nos 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15 (ECtHR [GC], 25 May 2021).
46. AİHM C.R. v United Kingdom App no 20190/92 (ECtHR, 22 November 1995).
47. AİHM Cantoni v France App no 17862/91 (ECtHR, 11 November 1996).
48. AİHM Contrada v Italy (no 3) App no 66655/13 (ECtHR, 14 April 2015).
49. AİHM De Tommaso v Italy App no 43395/09 (ECtHR [GC], 23 February 2017).
50. AİHM Del Río Prada v Spain App no 42750/09 (ECtHR [GC], 21 October 2013).
51. AİHM Delga v France App no 38998/20 (ECtHR, 9 July 2024).
52. AİHM Demirhan and Others v Türkiye App no 1595/20 and 238 others (ECtHR, 22 July 2025).
53. AİHM Dragotoniu and Militaru-Pidhorni v Romania App nos 77193/01 and 77196/01 (ECtHR, 24 May 2007).
54. AİHM G.I.E.M. Srl and Others v Italy App nos 1828/06, 34163/07 and 19029/11 (ECtHR [GC], 28 June 2018).
55. AİHM Garofalo and Others v Italy App nos 47269/18, 47426/18, 47793/18 and 47996/18 (ECtHR, kabul edilemezlik kararı, 13 February 2025).
56. AİHM Gülcü v Turkey App no 17526/10 (ECtHR, 19 January 2016).
57. AİHM Herri Batasuna and Batasuna v Spain App nos 25803/04 and 25817/04 (ECtHR, 30 June 2009).
58. AİHM Ilnseher v Germany App nos 10211/12 and 27505/14 (ECtHR [GC], 4 December 2018).
59. AİHM Işıkırık v Turkey App no 41226/09 (ECtHR, 14 November 2017).
60. AİHM İmret v Turkey (no 2) App no 57316/10 (ECtHR, 10 July 2018).
61. AİHM Jorgic v Germany App no 74613/01 (ECtHR, 12 July 2007).
62. AİHM K.-H.W. v Germany App no 37201/97 (ECtHR [GC], 22 March 2001).
63. AİHM K.A. and A.D. v Belgium App nos 42758/98 and 45558/99 (ECtHR, 17 February 2005).
64. AİHM Kafkaris v Cyprus App no 21906/04 (ECtHR [GC], 12 February 2008).
65. AİHM Kasymakhunov and Saybatalov v Russia App nos 26261/05 and 26377/06 (ECtHR, 14 March 2013).
66. AİHM Klass and Others v Germany App no 5029/71 (ECtHR, 6 September 1978).
67. AİHM Kokkinakis v Greece App no 14307/88 (ECtHR, 25 May 1993).
68. AİHM Kononov v Latvia App no 36376/04 (ECtHR [GC], 17 May 2010).
69. AİHM Liivik v Estonia App no 12157/05 (ECtHR, 25 June 2009).
70. AİHM Malone v United Kingdom App no 8691/79 (ECtHR, 2 August 1984).
71. AİHM Milanković v Croatia App no 33320/14 (ECtHR, 20 January 2022).
72. AİHM Navalnyye v Russia App no 101/15 (ECtHR, 17 October 2017).
73. AİHM Norman v United Kingdom App no 41387/17 (ECtHR, 6 July 2021).
74. AİHM Öğreten and Kanaat v Turkey App nos 42201/17 and 42212/17 (ECtHR, 18 May 2021).
75. AİHM Parmak and Bakır v Türkiye App nos 22429/07 and 25195/07 (ECtHR, 3 December 2019).
76. AİHM Perinçek v Switzerland App no 27510/08 (ECtHR [GC], 15 October 2015).
77. AİHM Pessino v France App no 40403/02 (ECtHR, 10 October 2006).
78. AİHM S.W. v United Kingdom App no 20166/92 (ECtHR, 22 November 1995).
79. AİHM Saakashvili v Georgia App nos 6232/20 and 22394/20 (ECtHR, 23 May 2024).
80. AİHM Sacharuk v Lithuania App no 39300/18 (ECtHR, 23 April 2024).
81. AİHM Selahattin Demirtaş v Turkey (no 2) App no 14305/17 (ECtHR, 20 November 2018).
82. AİHM Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v Germany App nos 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98 (ECtHR [GC], 22 March 2001).
83. AİHM Sud Fondi Srl and Others v Italy App no 75909/01 (ECtHR, 20 January 2009).
84. AİHM Sunday Times v United Kingdom (no 1) App no 6538/74 (ECtHR, 26 April 1979).
85. AİHM Tristan v Republic of Moldova App no 13451/15 (ECtHR, 4 July 2023).
86. AİHM Varvara v Italy App no 17475/09 (ECtHR, 29 October 2013).
87. AİHM Vasiliauskas v Lithuania App no 35343/05 (ECtHR [GC], 20 October 2015).
88. AİHM Welch v United Kingdom App no 17440/90 (ECtHR, 9 February 1995).
89. AİHM Yasak v Türkiye App no 17389/20 (ECtHR, 27 August 2024).
90. AİHM Yasak v Türkiye App no 17389/20 (ECtHR [GC], 5 May 2026).
91. AİHM Yüksel Yalçınkaya v Türkiye App no 15669/20 (ECtHR [GC], 26 September 2023).
92. AİHM Žaja v Croatia App no 37462/09 (ECtHR, 4 October 2016).