Avrupa insan hakları sözleşmesi uygulamasında 15 ve 16 nolu ek protokollerle öngörülen reform

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi hukuk sistemi, kurulduğu tarihten itibaren hem nitelik ve mekanizma olarakhem detaraf devlet, dolayısıyla yararlanan kişi sayısı ba- kımından sürekli şekilde gelişmiş bulunmaktadır. Ne var ki, sistemin yargısal mekaniz- ması zamanla gelişen ihtiyaçlar karşısında zorluklarla karşılaşmaktadır. Bu zorlukların aşılmasında, taraf devletlerin rıza ve iradeleri temelinde yeni düzenlemeler yapılması yoluna gidilmektedir. Gerekli görülen düzenlemeler, genellikle Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, Avrupa Konseyi’nin ilgili kurumları ve taraf devletlerince milletlerarası konferans platformun- da tartışılmakta ve imzaya açılmaktadır. Türkiye’nin de katıldığı bu çabalar, temelde, insan hak ve özgürlüklerinin millî düzeylerde pratikte etkin şekilde gerçekleştirilmesini amaçlamaktadır. Bu makalede, yargısal sistemin etkinliği adına yapılan düzenlemelere yer verilmek- tedir. Esas itibarıyla, yürürlüğe girmesi beklenen Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’ne Ek 15 ve 16 Nolu Protokoller’le öngörülen yenilikler inceleme konusu edilmektedir.

The reform provided by additional protocols no 15 and 16 in the implementation of the european convention on human rights

The legal system of the European Convention on Human Rights has been constant- ly developing and thus facing many challenges, mainly because of individual needs and social expectations. In overcoming these challenges, the reform has been an ab- solute necessity based on the concent and the will of party states. In general, necessary legal provisions have been discussed in the form of inter- national conferences by the member states of the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights, and certain institutions of the Council of Europe, and ulti- mately opened for signatures. Turkey has also participated in these efforts. The intro- duction of the reforms essentially aims to serve practical and effective realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at natioanl levels. The main point of this article is to examine reforms made so far in the legal machi- nary of the system in general. However, reforms set up in the Protocol No. 15 and 16 has been the particular concern.

___

  • BAKIRCIOĞLU, Önder, “The Application of the Margin of Appreciation Doctri- ne in Freedom of Expression and Public Morality Cases”, German Law Journal, Volume 8, Issue 7, 2007, pp. 711–734.
  • BİLİR, Faruk, “Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin Yapısı ve 14 Nolu Protokol”, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 55, Sayı 1, 2006.
  • Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, High Level Conference on the Fu- ture of the European Court of Human Rights, Interlaken Declaration, Swit- zerland, 19 February 2010, and the related documents [https://wcd.coe.int/ ViewDoc.jsp?id=1591969, 5 Aralık 2014].
  • Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights, Brighton Declaration, Uni- ted Kingdom, 20 April 2012 [https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=Brighton- Declaration&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&Site=COE&BackColorIn- ternet=DBDCF2&BackColorIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864, 5 Aralık 2014].
  • Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Resolution Res(2004)3 on Judg- ments Revealing an Underlying Systemic Problem, 12 May 2004 [https://wcd. coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=743257&Lang=fr, 7 Kasım 2014].
  • Council of Europe, Explanatory Report, Protocol No. 15 amending the Con- vention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (CETS No. 213) [http://www.conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Reports/Html/213.ht- m#FN4, 7 Aralık 2014].
  • Council of Europe, Explanatory Report, Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (CETS No. 214) [http://www.conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Reports/Html/214.htm, 8 Aralık 2014].
  • Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assambly, Opinion 285 (2013) Final version, 28 June 2013, Draft Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/ XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=20015&lang=en, 7 Aralık 2014].
  • Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Opinion 283 (2013) Final version, 26 April 2013, Draft Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention for the Prote- ction of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [http://assembly.coe.int/ nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=19723&lang=en, 5 Aralık 2014].
  • Council of Europe, Protocol No. 10 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, CETS No. 146 [http://conventions. coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ListeTraites.asp?-MA=3&CM=7&CL=ENG, 5 Şubat 2014].
  • Council of Europe, Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, restructuring the control machi- nery established thereby, CETS No. 155 [http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/ Commun/ListeTraites.asp?MA=3&-CM=7&CL=ENG, 5 Şubat 2014].
  • Council of Europe, Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Amending the Control System of the Convention CETS No. 194 [http://conventions.coe.int, 25 Ocak 2014].
  • Council of Europe, Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention for the Prote- ction of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, CETS No. 213, Chart of Signatures and Ratifications [http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/Lis- teTraites.asp?PO=Tur&-MA=999&SI=3&CM=3&CL=ENG, 27 Ekim 2014].
  • Council of Europe, Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, CETS No. 214, Chart of Signatures and Ratifications [http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ListeTraites. asp?PO=Tur&-MA=999&SI=3&CM=3&CL=ENG, 1 Aralık 2014].
  • Council of Europe, Protocol No. 2 to the Convention for the Protection of Hu- man Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, conferring upon the European Court of Human Rights competence to give advisory opinions, CETS No. 044 [http:// conventions.coe.int-/Treaty/Commun/-ListeTraites.asp?MA=3&CM=7&C- L=ENG, 5 Şubat 2014].
  • Council of Europe, Protocol No. 3 to the Convention for the Protection of Hu- man Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending Articles 29, 30 and 34 of the Convention, CETS No. 045 [http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ ListeTraites.asp?MA=3-&CM=7&CL=-ENG, 5 Şubat 2014].
  • Council of Europe, Protocol No. 5 to the Convention for the Protection of Hu- man Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending Articles 22 and 40 of the Convention, CETS No. 055 [http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/Lis- teTraites.asp?MA=3&CM=7&CL-=ENG, 5 Şubat 2014].
  • Council of Europe, Protocol No. 8 to the Convention for the Protection of Hu- man Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, CETS No. 118 [http://conventions. coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ListeTraites.asp?-MA=3&CM=7&CL=ENG, 5 Şubat 2014].
  • Council of Europe, Protocol No. 9 to the Convention for the Protection of Hu- man Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, CETS No. 140 [http://conventions. coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ListeTraites.asp?-MA=3&CM=7&CL=ENG, 5 Şubat 2014].
  • DOTHAN, Shai, “Judicial Tactics in the European Court of Human Rights”, Chi- cago Journal of International Law, Volume 12, Issue 1, 2011-2012, pp. 115- 142.
  • GÖZLÜGÖL, Said Vakkas, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Hukuku (Turhan Kitabevi, An- kara, Mayıs 2014).
  • HEDIGAN, John, “The European Court of Human Rights: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow”, German Law Journal, Volume 12, Issue 10, 2011, pp. 1716-1729.
  • HELFER, Laurence R., “Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: Em- beddedness as a Deep Structural Principle of the European Human Rights Re- gime”, European Journal of International Law, Volume 19, Issue 1, 2008, pp. 125-198.
  • JANIS, Mark, KAY, Richard S. and BRADLEY, Anthony W., European Human Ri- ghts Law: Text and Materials (Third Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2008).
  • MOWBRAY, Alastair, “The Interlaken Declaration - The Beginning of a New Era for the European Court of Human Rights?”, Human Rights Law Review, Volu- me 10, Issue 3, 2010, pp. 519-528.
  • O’BOYLE, Michael, “The Future of the European Court of Human Rights”, Ger- man Law Journal, Volume 12, Issue 10, 2011, pp. 1862-1877.
  • PARASKEVA, Costas, “Reforming the European Court of Human Rights: An On- going Challenge”, Nordic Journal of International Law, Volume 76, 2007, pp. 185–216.
  • RIETIKER, Daniel, “The Principle of “Effectiveness” in the Recent Jurispruden- ce of the European Court of Human Rights: Its Different Dimensions and Its Consistency with Public International Law — No Need for the Concept of Tre- aty Sui Generis”, Nordic Journal of International Law, Volume 79, 2010, pp. 245–277.
  • Third Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Member States of the Council of Europe, Warsaw, 16-17 May 2005 [http://www.coe.int/t/DCR/ Summit/default_EN.asp, 7 Aralık 2014].
  • TÜMAY, Murat, “The “Margin of Appreciation Doctrine” Developed by the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights,” Ankara Law Review, Volu- me 5, Issue 2, Winter 2008, pp. 201–234.
  • WALLACE, Stuart, “Much Ado about Nothing? The Pilot Judgment Procedure at the European Court of Human Rights”, European Human Rights Law Re- view, Volume 1, 2011, s. 71-81.
  • WILDHABER,Luzius, “Changing Ideas About the Task of the European Court of Human Rights”, in Luzius WILDHABER (Ed.) The European Court of Human Ri- ghts 1998-2006: History, Achievements, Reform (N P Engel, Kehl, Strasbourg, Arlington, 2006),