Birleşik Krallık Anayasası’nda Yürütmenin Prorogasyon İmtiyazı ve Yüksek Mahkemenin 24 Eylül 2019 Tarihli Cherry/Miller Kararı
Öz 24 Eylül 2019’da Birleşik Krallık Yüksek Mahkemesi Cherry/Miller kararında Başbakan Boris Johnson’ın Kraliçe’ye sunduğu Parlamento çalışmalarının 11 Eylül-14 Ekim 2019 arasında durdurulması tavsiyesini ve ilgili Konsey kararını hukuka aykırı bulmuş ve hükümsüzlüğüne karar vermiştir. Bu dava ile yürütmenin prorogasyon yetkisi, Birleşik Krallık anayasa tarihinde ilk kez yargısal uyuşmazlığa konu olmuştur. Yargıçların vereceği karar, gerek diğer Kraliyet imtiyazlarının yargısal rejiminin gelişim seyri gerekse Brexit sürecinde değer kaybı yaşayan Parlamentonun anayasal fonksiyonlarının yeniden hatırlanması için hususi bir önemi haizdi. Bu makalede, Birleşik Krallık Anayasası’ndaki prorogasyon kurumunun normsal sınıflandırması, mahiyeti, etkileri, bağlı olduğu yürütme yetkisi, kanunlarla ilişkisi ve yargısal rejimi ele alınacaktır. Ardından Yüksek Mahkemenin makalenin diğer odak noktasını teşkil eden Cherry/Miller kararı incelenecektir. Bu kararı ülke anayasal tarihi bakımından fevkalade kılacak nokta, yürütmenin prorogasyon yetkisinin sınırları tartışılırken sadece kanunların değil Parlamentonun egemenliği ve yürütmenin Parlamentoya hesap verme sorumluluğu ilkelerinin de ölçüt norm olarak ele alınmasıdır. Bugüne kadar biliyorduk ki özellikle common law geleneğinde Parlamento ile Hükûmet arasındaki güç denge mekanizması ve yürütmenin yasamaya karşı olan sorumluluğu siyasi alanı ilgilendirir. Kanaatimizce bu karar Parlamentonun egemenliği ve yürütmenin sorumluluğunu basit birer anayasal teamül meselesi olmaktan çıkarıp işlemin hükümsüzlüğüne karar kıldıracak kuvvette anayasal ilkeler seviyesine çıkarmıştır. Kararın yüksek profilli bir karar olma ihtimali buradaki yargılama muhakemesine dayanmaktadır.
___
- KAYNAKÇA
- ALDER, John (2002). General Principles of Constitutional and Administrative
Law, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
- BARNETT, Hilaire (2002). Constitutional and Administrative Law,
London&Sydney: Cavendish Publishing Limitet.
- BIRCH, Anthony Harold (1964). Representative and Responsible Government:
An Essay on the British Constitution, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
- BLOM-COOPER, Louis/DRABBLE, Richard (2010). “GCHQ revisited”,
Public Law, C. 1.
- COWIE, Graeme (2018). “A User’ Guide to the Meaninful Vote”, House of
Commons Library, Briefing Paper, No. 08424.
- COWIE, Graeme (2019). “Prorogation of Parliament”, House of Commons
Library, Briefing Paper, No: 8589.
- DICEY, Albert Venn (1979). An Introduction to the study of the Law of the
Constitution, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
- DREWRY, Gavin (1985). “The GCHQ Case-A Failure Of Government
Communications”, Parliamentary Affairs, C 38, S. 4, ss. 371-386.
- EKINS, Richard (2019). “Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Politics of
Prorogation”, Policy Exchange.
- FORD, Robert/GOODWIN, Matthew (2017). “Britain After Brexit: A Nation
Divided”, Journal of Democracy, C 28, S. 1, ss. 17-30
- HENNESSEY, Peter (1995). The Hidden Wiring: Unearthing the British
Constitution, London: Gollancz.
- House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee (2004). “Taming
the Prerogative: Strengthening Ministerial Accountability to Parliament”,
Fourth Report of Session 2003–04, No: HC 422.
- JACONELLI, Joseph (1999). “The Nature of Constitutional Convention”,
Legal Studies, C. 24, S 19, ss. 24-46.
- JOHNSTON, Neil (2019) “Pre-election period of sensitivity”, House of
Commons Library, Briefing Paper, No. 5262.
- KELLY, Richard (2017). “Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011”, House of
Commons Library, Briefing Paper, No. 06111.
- LUCAS, W. W. (1910). “Co-operative nature of english sovereignty”, Law
Quarterly Review, C 26, S 1., ss. 54-70
- MAY, Erskine (2019). Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of
Parliament, Elektronik baskı.
- Ministry of Justice (2009). “Review of the Executive Royal Prerogative
Powers: Final Report.
- NEENAN, Caroline (1998). “Reviewing Prerogative Powers: Roskill's List
Revisited”, Judicial Review, C 3, S 1., ss. 36-39.
- ÖZBUDUN, Ergun (2018) Türk Anayasa Hukuku, Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları.
- POLITOWSKI, Ben (2016). “House of Commons: Hours Sat & Late Sittings”,
House of Commons Library, Briefing Paper, No. SN02226.
- POOLE, Thomas (2010). “United Kingdom: The royal prerogative”,
International Journal of Constitutional Law, C 8, S 1., ss. 146-155.
- PRIDDY, Sarah (2016). “Number of Sitting Days by Session Since 1945”,
House of Commons Library, Briefing Paper, No. 04653.
- Public Administration Select Committee (2004). “Taming the Prerogative:
Strengthening Ministerial Accountability to Parliament”, Fourth Report of
Session 2003–04, No. HC 422.
- PURVIS, Matthew (2019). “Lengths of Prorogation since 1900”, House of
Commons Library, Briefing Paper, No. 0111.
- ROGERS, Robert/WALTERS, Rhodri (2015). How Parliament Works,
Abingdon: Routledge.
- SOSSIN, Lorne (2002). “The Rule of Law and the Justiciability of Prerogative
Powers: A Comment on Black v. Chrtien Poole”, McGill Law Journal, C 47, S
2., ss. 435-456.
- TURPIN, Colin/ TOMKINS, Adam (2012). British Government and
Constitution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- WADE, Emlyn Capel Stewart/BRADLEY, Anthony (1993). Constitutional and
Administrative Law, Harlow: Longman.
- WEAIT, Matthew/LESTER, Anthony (2003). “The use of ministerial powers
without parliamentary authority: the Ram doctrine”, Public Law, Autumn,
ss. 415-428.
- WHEARE, Kenneth Clinton (1966). Modern Constitutions, Oxford,:Oxford
University Press.
- KARARLAR
- R(Miller) v Prime Minister/Cherry v Advocate General (2019) UKSC No. 41,
24/9/2019.
- R Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017) UKSC No.
5, 24/1/2017.
- Joanna Cherry And Others v Advocate General (2019) CSIH No. 49, 11/9/2019.
R(Miller) v PM (2019) EWHC No. 2381 (QB), 11/9/2019.
- Joanna Cherry And Others v Advocate General (2019) CSOH No. 70, 4/9/2019.
- The Case of Proclamations (1611) 12 Co Rep 74, 1/1/1610.
- Attorney-General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel (1920) All ER 80; (1920) AC 508,
10/5/1920.
- Laker Airways Ltd v Department of Trade (1977) QB 643; 15/12/1976.
- Blackburn v Attorney General (1971) 1 WLR 1037, 10/5/1971.
- Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) A.C. 374,
22/11/1984.
- R. v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Everett,
(1989) 2 W.L.R. 224, 20/10/1988.
- R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bentley, (1993) 4 All
442, 7/07/1993.
- R. v. Ministry of Defence ex parte Smith, (1996) 2 W.L.R. 305, 3/11/1995.
- R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor (2017) UKSC 51, 26/7/2017.
- A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005) 1 AC 68, 16/12/2004.
- Gibson v Lord Advocate (1975) SC 136, 144, 7/3/1975.
- Robinson v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (2002) UKHL 32, 25/7/2002.
- Khaira v Shergill (2015) AC 359, 11/6/2014.
- Wheeler v Office of the Prime Minister (2008) EWHC 1409, 25/6/2008.
- In McClean v First Secretary of State (2017) EWHC 3174, 26/10/2017.
- İNTERNET KAYNAKLARI
- (Resmi kaynaklar)
- https://www.privycouncil.independent.gov.uk
- https://www.eur lex.europa.eu/resource
- https://www.royal.uk/
- http://www.legislation.gov.uk
- https://www.commonslibrary.parliament.uk
- https://www.hansard.parliament.uk
- https://www.parliament.uk
- https://www.publications.parliament.uk
- https://www.services.parliament.uk/
- https://www.bbc.com
- https://www.erskinemay.parliament.uk/
- https://www.researchbriefings.parliament.uk/
- (Diğerleri)
- https://www.theguardian.com/
- https://www.etymonline.com
- https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk
- https://www.youtube.com
- https://www.economist.com
- https://www.heraldscotland.com
- https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk