BİRLEŞİK KRALLIK ANAYASASI’NDA YÜRÜTMENİN PROROGASYON İMTİYAZI VE YÜKSEK MAHKEMENİN 24 EYLÜL 2019 TARİHLİ CHERRY/MILLER KARARI

24 Eylül 2019’da Birleşik Krallık Yüksek Mahkemesi Cherry/Millerkararında Başbakan Boris Johnson’ın Kraliçe’ye sunduğu Parlamentoçalışmalarının 11 Eylül-14 Ekim 2019 arasında durdurulması tavsiyesinive ilgili Konsey kararını hukuka aykırı bulmuş ve hükümsüzlüğünekarar vermiştir. Bu dava ile yürütmenin prorogasyon yetkisi, BirleşikKrallık anayasa tarihinde ilk kez yargısal uyuşmazlığa konu olmuştur.Yargıçların vereceği karar, gerek diğer Kraliyet imtiyazlarının yargısalrejiminin gelişim seyri gerekse Brexit sürecinde değer kaybı yaşayanParlamentonun anayasal fonksiyonlarının yeniden hatırlanması içinhususi bir önemi haizdi. Bu makalede, Birleşik Krallık Anayasası’ndakiprorogasyon kurumunun normsal sınıflandırması, mahiyeti, etkileri, bağlıolduğu yürütme yetkisi, kanunlarla ilişkisi ve yargısal rejimi ele alınacaktır.Ardından Yüksek Mahkemenin makalenin diğer odak noktasını teşkileden Cherry/Miller kararı incelenecektir. Bu kararı ülke anayasal tarihibakımından fevkalade kılacak nokta, yürütmenin prorogasyon yetkisininsınırları tartışılırken sadece kanunların değil Parlamentonun egemenliğive yürütmenin Parlamentoya hesap verme sorumluluğu ilkelerinin deölçüt norm olarak ele alınmasıdır. Bugüne kadar biliyorduk ki özelliklecommon law geleneğinde Parlamento ile Hükûmet arasındaki güç dengemekanizması ve yürütmenin yasamaya karşı olan sorumluluğu siyasi alanı ilgilendirir. Kanaatimizce bu karar Parlamentonun egemenliğive yürütmenin sorumluluğunu basit birer anayasal teamül meselesiolmaktan çıkarıp işlemin hükümsüzlüğüne karar kıldıracak kuvvetteanayasal ilkeler seviyesine çıkarmıştır. Kararın yüksek profilli bir kararolma ihtimali buradaki yargılama muhakemesine dayanmaktadır.

The Prerogative of Prorogation in the British Constitution and the Cherry/Miller Case, Dated 24 September 2019, of the Supreme Court

In Cherry/Miller case, dated 24 September 2019, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom found unlawful and declared void the advice of Boris Johnson to the Queen to prorogue parliament from 11 September to 14 October and the relevant Order of Council. It was the first time that the power to prorogue had been subject to judicial scrutiny. The ruling to be given had already appeared highly crucial considering the judicial history of the royal prerogatives and the already damaged perception of Parliament among the public during the course of Brexit. This article aims to argue the power to prorogue within the hierarchy of norms, the broader executive power to which it is associated, and its judicial treatment. As the other major point to concentrate on in the article, the ruling of the Supreme Court on Cherry/Miller will be examined along with those of the first instance proceedings. What would make intriguing the Court’s decision is that not only the statutes but also parliamentary sovereignty and accountability are discussed to be the legal criteria in deciding the lawful extent of the prerogative of prorogation. Until quite recently, it was widely accepted that the relationship between Parliament and the executive, and the responsibility of the later to the former are political issues, particularly in the common law traditions. That said, we believed that this decision uplifts parliamentary sovereignty and accountability to the point where they will be from now on treated as ‘constitutional principles’ rather than merely ‘constitutional conventions’ anymore, to the extent that they will enable courts to nullify the executive decisions/actions at stake. It is in this sense that the decision seems to be likely among the high profile cases in future.

PDF

___

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.
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.
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/
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