Ukrayna ve Hollanda/Rusya Kabul Edilebilirlik Kararı Doğrultusunda Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin Yetki Yaklaşımına İlişkin Analiz

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nde yetki, uluslararası hukuktaki karşılığından farklı olarak, taraf devletlerin sözleşmelerden doğan yükümlülükleriyle ilişkilendirilmektedir. Sözleşme’nin ülke dışına uygulanması çerçevesinde devletin yetkisinin tespiti, taraf devletin belirli bir bölge veya birey üzerinde yasama, yürütme veya yargı yetkisi kullanmasından yahut bu yetkilerini kullanmasına ilişkin sınırların belirlenmesinden ziyade; devletin, belirli bir bölge veya hak sahibi birey üzerinde denetim ve otorite uygulaması üzerine kurulmaktadır. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin 2022 tarihli Ukrayna ve Hollanda/Rusya kabul edilebilirlik kararı ise Sözleşme’nin ülke dışına uygulanabilirliği çerçevesinde yetki kavramına, yetki ve atfedilme kavramları arasındaki ilişkiye ve Sözleşme’nin uluslararası nitelikli silahlı çatışmalar sırasında uygulanmasına ilişkin değerlendirme içermesi bakımından önemli bir kararı teşkil etmektedir. Çalışmada ise söz konusu karar çerçevesinde Mahkeme’nin yetki yaklaşımı incelenecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, Yetki, Ülke dışı Uygulama, Atfedilme, Silahlı Çatışmalar

An analysis of the European Court’s Approach to Extraterritorial Application in the light of the European Court’s Admissibility Decision in Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia

In European Convention on Human Rights the concept of jurisdiction is laid down in connection with the obligations arising from the treaties for states, which is different from its international law counterpart. In the Convention system, it is observed that the State is obliged to fulfill its obligations arising from human rights treaties to the extent that it provides authority and control. The bodies of the Convetion use the factual relationship established through two criteria, that the respondent State exercised effective control over an area is beyond its territority or the victims fell under State agent authority and control in territory which is beyond State’s territory, to determine the extraterritorial application of the Convention. In the admissibility decision of Ukraine and Netherlands/Russia by the European Court of Human Rights in 2022, the Court evaluated the concept of extraterritorial application of the ECHR, the relationship between jurisdiction and attribution, and the application of the treaty during international armed conflicts. This study will examine the approach to extraterritorial application within the framework of this decision.

Keywords:

European Convention on Human Rights, Jurisdiction, Extraterritorial Application, Attribution, Armed Conflict,

PDF

___

Aksar, Yusuf: Teoride ve Uygulamada Uluslararası Hukuk I (6. Baskı, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2021).
Da Costa, Karen: Extraterritorial Application of Selected Human Rights Treaties, Leiden-Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2013.
Den Heijer, Maarten: Europe and Extraterritorial Asylum, Hart Publishing, 2012.
Galka, Katarzyna Urszula: “The Jurisdiction Criterion in Article 1 of the ECHR and a Territorial State, Considerations Inspired by the ‘Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan’ Case” International Community Law Review 17 (2015).
Gemalmaz, Haydar Burak: “Amerikalılar Arası İnsan Hakları Komisyonunun Amerika Birleşik Devletlerine Karşı Guantanamo Bay’de Alıkonulanlara İlişkin Olarak Verdiği Önleyici Tedbiler Hakkındaki Kararın Değerlendirilmesi”, Milletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni 22/2 (2002).
Gemalmaz, Mehmet Semih: Ulusalüstü İnsan Hakları Hukuku Belgeleri, I. Cilt- Bölgesel Sistemler, Legal Kitabevi, 2011.
Karagözoğlu, Ceren: İnsan Hakları Sözleşmelerinin Ülke Dışına Uygulanabilirliği Çerçevesinde Devletin Yetkisi ve Sorumluluğu, İstanbul:Oniki Levha Yayıncılık, 2023.
Larsen, Kjetil Mujezinovic: “Territorial Non-Application’ of the European Convention on Human Rights”, Nordic Journal of International Law 78, (2009).
Lawson, Rick: “Life After Bankovic: On the Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights”, Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties, Ed. Fons Coomans/Menno T. Kamminga, Antwerp, Oxford: Intersentia, 2004.
Milanovic, Marko: “Jurisdiction and Responsibility: Trends in the Jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court”, The European Convetion on Human Rights and General International Law, Eds. Anne Van Aaken/Iulia Motoc, Oxford University Press, 2018.
Milanovic, Marko: Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties -Law, Principles, and Policy, Oxford Press, 2011.
Milanovic, Marko: “Special Rules of Attribution of Conduct in International Law”, International Law Studies 20/8, (2020).
Milanovic, Marko: The European Court’s Admissibility Decision in Ukraine and the Netherlands v Russia: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - Part I, (EJIL:Talk!) < https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-european-courts-admissibility-decision-in-ukraine-and-the-netherlands-v-russia-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-part-i/> 3 Nisan 2023.
Scheinin, Martin: ʻJust Another Word? Jurisdiction in the Roadmaps of State Responsiblity and Human Rightsʼ, Eds. Malcolm  Langford Malcolm Langford, Wouter Vandenhole, Martin Scheinin, Willem Van Genugten Global Justice, State Duties: The Extraterritorial Scope of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in International Law (Cambridge University Press 2013).
Vandenhole, Wouter: “The ‘J’ Word: Driver or Spoiler of Change in Human Rights Law?”, The Oxford Handbook of Jurisdiction in International Law, Eds. Stephen Allen, Daniel Costelloe, Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Paul Gragl, Edward Guntrip (Oxford University Press 2019).
Wilde, Ralph: “Legal “Black Hole”? Extraterritorial State Action and International Treaty Law on Civil and Political Rights”, Michigan Journal of International Law 29/3, (2005).
Mahkeme Kararları ve Uluslararası Belgeler
ECtHR, 8019/16; 43800/14; 28525/20, 30.11.2022, Ukraine and The Netherlands v. Russia, (Çevrimiçi) https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-222889, 2 Şubat 2023.
ECtHR, 38263/08, 21.01.2021, Georgia v. Russia (II) (Çevrimiçi) https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-207757, 31 Ocak 2023.
ECtHR, 52207/99, 12.12.2001, Vlastimir And Borka Bankovic, Zivana Stojanovic, Mirjana Stoimenovski, Dragana Joksimovic And Dragan Sukovic v. Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom (Grand Chamber Decision As to The Admissibility), (Çevrimiçi)https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"languageisocode":["ENG"],"appno":["52207/99"],"documentcollectionid2":["DECGRANDCHAMBER"],"itemid":["001-22099"]}, 24 Mayıs 2019.
ECtHR, 55721/07, 07.07.2011, Al-Skeini and Others v. The United Kingdom (Çevrimiçi) http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-105606, 4 Aralık 2022.
ECtHR, 4871/16, 16.02.2021, Hanan v. Germany (Çevrimiçi) https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-208279, 2 Ekim 2021.
ECtHR, 36925/07, 29.01.2019, Güzelyurtlu and Others v. Cyprus and Turkey (Çevrimiçi) https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189781, 10 Eylül 2021.
ECtHR, 20958/14; 38334/18, 16.12.2020, Ukraine v. Russia (Re Crimea) (Çevrimiçi) http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-207622, 7 Eylül 2021.
ECtHR, 48787/99, 08.07.2004, Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia (Çevrimiçi) https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61886, 20 Nisan 2022.
ECtHR, 13216/05, 16.06.2015, Chiragov and Others v. Armenia (Çevrimiçi) http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155353, 12 Mart 2021.
ECtHR, 40167/06, 16.06.2015, Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan (Çevrimiçi) https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155662, 8 Eylül 2021.
Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries International Law Commission, Fifty- third session, 2001, (A/56/10), Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol. II, Part Two.
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocols No. 11 and No. 14, European Treaty Series - No. 5, Council of Europa https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf, 3 Mart 2023.