Discrimination in the european union: A problem aimed to be resolved or just an instrument to serve the economic targets?

Tarihsel olarak izleri 14. yüzyıla kadar izlenebilen Avrupa Birliği (AB); malların, sermayenin ve kişilerin serbest dolaşımı ve eşitlik ilkelerine dayanan ortak bir market sağlamak amacı ile oluşturulmuştur. Avrupa Birliği’nin İşleyişi Hakkında Antlaşma; bu amaç doğrultusunda Birlik içerisinde ayrımcılığı yasaklayıcı hükümler ihtiva etmekte olup, Antlaşmanın 18. maddesi, özellikle kişilerin tabiiyeti göz önünde bulundurularak yapılan ayrımcılığın engellenmesinin altı çizilmiştir. Avrupa Birliği (AB) Konseyi ayrımcılığın önlenmesi ilkesini Birliğin temel prensipleri arasında göstererek bu konudaki çalışmalara önem vermiştir. Son dönemde hız kanana bu çalışmalar ile AB’nin amacının yalnızca ekonomik değil, sosyal değerleri de ön planda tutan ve her platform eşitliğe dayalı bir toplum oluşturma olduğunu göstermek için çaba sarf edilmiştir. Avrupa Adalet Divanı (AAD) ise, ayrımcılığın önlenmesi hususundaki uygulamalarında, kimi zaman sosyal adaleti hırsla savunmuş ve eşitliği sağlamak adına tüm silahlarını kullanmış, ekonomik menfaatler devreye girdiği zaman diğer zamanlar da ise bu bakış açısından vazgeçerek istikrarsız bir tutum sergilemiştir. Bu çalışmanın amacı ‘‘ayrımcılık’’ kavramının ve etkilerinin incelenmesinin yanı sıra, AAD’nin bu konudaki çelişkili yaklaşımını ve bu yaklaşımın nasıl kendi içinde ayrımcılığa yol açtığını ortaya koymaktır.Çalışmanın genelinde ayrımcılığı (özellikle de tabiiyet ayrımcılığının) ortadan kaldırılması ve eşitliğin sağlanması adına açılan davalarda, AAD tarafından verilen kararların taşıdığı ikilemin, AAD’nin ‘gerek sosyal, gerekse ticari değerlerin korunduğu bir Avrupa Birliği’ formülünün ikinci bölümü olan ekonomik menfaatler bölümüne ağırlık vermesinden kaynaklandığı ve dolayısıyla istikrarsız ve çelişkili olan bu tablonun aynı zamanda bilinçli bir seçimin ürünü olduğu ortaya konulmuştur.

Avrupa birliği’nde ayrımcılık: Çözümlenmesi hedeflenen bir problem mi yoksa sadece ekonomik amaçlara ulaşmada kullanılan bir araç mı?

The idea of European Union (EU), of which the traces can be pursued historically back to the 14th century, from the 1950s when the formal foundations of the Union was laid, up until today is based on the same aim: establishing a common market between member states, free of obstacles to ‘free movement of goods, persons, services and capital’. In the pursuit of its basic aim, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) prohibits certain types of discrimination, especially any discrimination on grounds of nationality prohibited by Article 18 of the TFEU. The EU Commission, attaches special importance to the studies over the prohibition of nationality discrimination by setting this principle as one of the core principles underlying all Union policies. With the studies that have picked up speed in recent times, the aim of the EU has been stated to be achieving a deeper and a broader community, which would constitute a union not only consisting of an economic alliance. The European Court of Justice (the ECJ or the Court) is, however, with no regard to the consistency in the application of the non-discrimination provisions. In some cases, the alleged discrimination is eminently strived to be abolished,whereas in others, particularly the ones in which the economic benefits are at stake, the Court does not refrain from discriminatory application. The aim of this study is not only to examine the concept of ‘discrimination’ and its effects, but also to expose the somewhat ‘twisted’ approach of the ECJ, towards this problem, resulting in the prevalence of discrimination within the Union, in spite of the distinct articles contained in the TFEU. Meanwhile, this research aims to examine this ‘corruption’ comprehensively and produce some theories regarding the reasons behind discrimination in the EU and its continued existence.

PDF

___

BOOKS
ARNULL, Anthony/ WYATT, Derrick, Wyatt and Dashwood’s European Union Law , London:Sweet & Max-well,, 2006.
BELL, Mark, Anti Discrimination Law and the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
BOZKURT,Enver/ ÖZCAN, Mehmet / KÖKTAŞ, Arif, Avrupa Birliği Hukuku, 4th edn., Ankara, 2008.
BURROWS, F., Free Movement in European Community Law, Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1987.
BIRKINSHAW, Patrick, European Union Legal Order After Lisbon, North Canada,USA:Kluwer Law International, 2010.
CRAIG, Paul, The Lisbon Treaty:Law,Politics and the Treaty Reform, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
DE BÚRCA, Grainne, The Role of Equality in EC Law, London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1997.
DE BÚRCA, Grainne, The Principle of Equal Treatment in EC Law, London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1997.
EHLERS, Dirk/ BECKER, Ulrich, European Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007.
HARTLEY, Trevor C., European Union Law in a Global Context: Text, Cases and Materials, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
KARLUK, Rıdvan, ‘‘Avrupa Birliği’nde Dört Temel Özgürlük’’, in Avrupa Birliği Hukuku ve Avrupa Kurumları, Ankara:Türkiye Barolar Birliği Yayınları, September 2006.
SARGEANT, Malcolm, Discrimination on Grounds of Nationality, Edinburgh, UK: Pearson Longman, 2004.
SHAW Jo, ‘‘The Problem of Membership in European Union Citizenship’’ in Zenon BANKOSKI-Andrew SCOTT (Eds.), The European Union and its Order: the Legal Theory of European Integration, UK:Wiley-Blackwell, 2000, pp.65-91.
SUNDBERG-WEITMAN, Brita, Discrimination on Grounds of Nationality, Free Movement of Workers and Freedom of Establishment under the EEC Treaty, Netherlands: North Holland Publishing, 1977.
TEKİNALP, Ünal /TEKİNALP, Gülören, Avrupa Birliği Hukuku, İstanbul, $2^{nd}$ edn., May 2000.
VAN BOCKEL, Bas, The ne bis in idem Principle in EU Law, North Canada,USA:Kluwer Law International, 2010.
WEATHERILL, Stephen, Cases and materials on EU law, Oxford University Press, 2007.
JOURNAL ARTICLES
BERNARD, Nicolas, ‘‘Discrimination and Free Movement in EC Law’’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Volume 45 (1996), pp. 82- 108.
CHALMERS, Damian, ‘‘Repackaging the Internal Market- The Ramifications of the Keck Judgment’’, European Law Review, Volume 19 Issue 4 (1994), pp. 385-403.
COPPEL, Jason/ O’NEILL, Aidan, ‘‘The European Court of Justice; Taking Rights Seriously’’, Legal Studies, Volume 12 (1992), pp.227-239.
MCMULLAN, Caroline / HEGARTY, Angela / KEOWN, Caroline, ‘‘Hierarchies of Discrimination; the Political, Legal and Social Prioritization of the Equality Agenda in Northern Ireland’’, Equal Opportunities International, Volume 15 (1996), pp.1-26.
LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
The German Code of Social Law (Sozialgesetzbuch II).
The Clayton Antitrust Act, 15.10.1914, 15 United State Code (USC) 18.
The Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and Certain Related Acts , OJ C340, 10.11.1997.
Council Directive 2000/43/EC, OJ L185, 29.06.2000.
Council Directive 2000/78/EC, OJ L303/16 of 27.11.2000.
Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, OJ-not published, Date of signature: 18.04.1951, Entry into force: 24.07.1952.
Treaty establishing European Economic Community, OJ- not published, Date of signature: 25.03.1957, Entry into force: 01.01.1958.
Treaty on European Union, OJ C191, 29.07.1992.
Consolidated Text of the Treaty establishing the European Community, OJ C224, 31.08.1992.
Communication from the Commission on Racism, Xenophobia and Anti- Semitism. Proposal for a Council Decision Designating 1997 as European Year Against Racism, European Union Commission Document (COM) (95) 653 final, 13 December 1995.
Consolidated Text of the Treaty establishing the European Community, OJ C321E, 29.12.2006 (TEC).
The Treaty of Lisbon (Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) C306, 17.12.2007.
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C83, 30.03.2010. Consolidated Text of the Treaty on European Union, OJ C83, 30.03.2010 (TEU).
Consolidated Text of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ C83, 30.03.2010 (TFEU).
CASE LAW
Case 2/73 Riseria Luigi Geddo v Ente Nazionale Risi [1973] European Court Reports (ECR) 865.
Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein [1979] ECR 649.
Case 293/83 Gravier v. City of Liege [1985] ECR.I-593.
Case 24/86 Blaizot v. University of Liege [1988] ECR.I-3798.
Joined Cases C-1/90 and C-176/90, Aragonesa de Publicidad Exterior SA and Publivia SAE v. Departamato de Sanidad y Seguridad Social de la Generalitat de Cataluna [1991] ECR I-4151.
Case C-2/90 Commission v Belgium [1992] ECR I-4431.
Case C-267/91 and C-268/91 Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097.
Case C-45/93 Commission v. Spain [1994] ECR I-911.
Case C-85/96 Martínez Sala [1998] ECR I-2691.
Case C-274/96 Criminal Proceeding Against Horst Otto Bickel and Ulrich Franz [1998] ECR I-7637.
C-246/89 Commision v.United Kingdom [1991] ECR I-4585, par. 18 and Case C-311/97 Royal Bank of Scotland [1999] ECR I-2651.
Case C-184/99 Rudy Grzelczyk v. Centre Public d’Aide Sociale d’Ottignes – Louvain-la-Neuve [2001] ECR I-6193.
Case C-456/02 Trojani v. Centre Public d’aide sociale de Bruxelles [2004] ECR I-7573.
Case C-209/3 The Queen, on the Application of Dany Bidar v. London Borough of Ealing and Secretary of State for Education and Skills [2005] ECR I- 2119.
Case C-164/07 James Wood v. Fonds de garentie des victimes des actes de terrorisme et d’autres infractions [2008] ECR I-4143.
Joined Cases C-22/08 and C-23/08 Athanasios Vatsouras and Josif Koupatantze v. Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nürnberg 900 [2009] ECR I-4585.