The Effects of Margin of Appreciation Doctrine on the European Court of Human Rights: Upholding Public Morality over Fundamental Rights

Öz The European Court of Human Rights’ (the Court, ECtHR) granting opportunityto Contracting States to strike a balance between the public goodand the interests of the individuals is designated as “margin of appreciationdoctrine”. Unfortunately, the Court is facing harsh crtitism applying thedoctrine to especially cases concerning the violation of Article 9- freedomof thought, conscience and religion and Article 10- freedom of expression,since it seems to lack standards in application. In this study, the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights’ controversial application of margin of appreciationdoctrine to freedom of religion and freedom of expression will be addressed.The discussion will seek to analyse the reasons behind the Court’s significantdiscretion affording to Contracting States when Article 9 and Article 10cases are in question.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

PDF

___

Books
Arai- Takahashi, Y. (2001). The margin of appreciation doctrine and the principle of proportionality in the jurisprudence of the ECHR. New York- USA: Intersentia.
Brems, E. (2001). Human rights: Universality and diversity. The Ha- gue- The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.
Council of Europe (2007). Freedom of expression in Europe. Strasbo- urg- France: Council of Europe Publishing.
Articles
Brauch, J. (2005). The margin of appreciation and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Threat to the rule of law. Columbia Journal of European Law, 11, 113- 150.
Edge, P. (1998). The European Court of human rights and religious rights. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 47 (3), 680- 687.
George, R. P. (2000). The concept of public morality. American Jour- nal of Jurisprudence, 45 (1), 17- 31.
Moral, I. (2006). The increasingly marginal appreciation of margin- of-appreciation doctrine. German Law Journal, 7 (6), 611- 624.
Okay Tekinsoy, Ö. (2011). Avrupa kamu düzeni kavramı. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 1 (1), 66- 79.
Prebensen, Soren C. (1998). The margin of appreciation and article 9, 10, 11 of the convention. Human Rights Law Journal, 19, 13- 17.
Tan, Ying Hui (1993). Law Report/ Greek Case Violated Religious Freedom: Kokkinakis v. Greece- European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg 25 May 1993, Independent (published on 16 June 1993- accession via website http://www.indepen- dent.co.uk/news/uk/law-report-greek-case-violated-religious- freedom-kokkinakis-v-greece-european-court-of-human- rights-1492004.html )
Tümay, M. (2008). The "Margin of Appreciation Doctrine" developed by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Ankara Law Review, 5 (2), 201- 234.
Yourow, H. C. (1996). The margin of appreciation doctrine in the dyna- mics of European Human Rights Jurisprudence. Connecticut Jo- urnal of International Law, 3, 111- 128.
Documents
Council of Europe, "Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms", (adopted 4 November 1950- entry into force 3 September 1953), London, CETS 005.
European Court of Human Rights' Press Unit, "Factsheet- Hate Spe- ech", Strasbourg- France, June 2015
European Court of Human Rights' Press Unit, "Factsheet- Religious Symbols and Clothing", Strasbourg- France, June 2015
Cases
Balysté- Lideikiené v. Lithuainia, Application No. 72596/01, Judgment 4 November 2008 Handyside v. UK, Application No. 5493/72, Judgment 7 December 1976
İ.A. v. Turkey, Application No. 42571/ 98, Judgment 13 September 2005
Kokkinakis v. Greece, Application No. 14307/88, Judgment 7 May 1993
Lautsi and Others v. Italy, Application No. 30814/06, Judgment 18 March 2011
Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, Application No. 44774/98, Judgment 10 No- vember 2005
Loizidou v. Turkey, Application No. 15318/89, Judgment 18 Decem- ber 1996
McGuinness v. United Kingdom, Application No. 39511/98, Judgment (Decision on Admissibility 8 June 1999)
Otto- Preminger Institut v. Austria, Application No. 13470/87, Judg- ment 20 September 1994
S.A.S. v. France, Application No. 43835/11, Judgment 26 June 2014
Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden, Application No. 1813/07, Judgment 9 May 2012
Wingrove v. United Kingdom, Application No. 17419/90, Judgment 25 November 1996
Websites
http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/1995/1/article1.en.html (latest access September 2015)
http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/oath-ofallegiance/ (latest access September 2015)
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/171697.pdf (latest access September 2015)
https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2613/en/ottopreminger-institut-v.-austria (latest access September 2015)