The European court of human rights: Quo vadis?

11 ve 14 numaralı Ek Protokoller’de değişiklik teklifi ile başlayan Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nde reform yapılması hususu taraf dev- letler tarafından tartışma konusu yapılmıştır. Mahkemenin bazı kararları (özellikle sosyal sigortalar ve göç konularında olduğu gibi) hukukçular ve taraf devletler tarafından eleştirilmiştir. Aslında mahkemenin sorunları bu konuların daha da ötesine gitmektedir. Bu sorunlar mahkemenin statüsü ve insan hakları koruma mekanizmasının etkinliğiyle de ilgilidir. Bu makale bu kapsamlı konuları derin bir şekilde araştırma amacı gütmemektedir. Amaç, genel bir bakışla yeni gelişmeleri aktarıp; ileride ne gibi ilave ön- lemlerin alınabileceğini araştırmaktır.

Avrupa insan hakları mahkemsi: gidiş nereye?

The reform process of the European Court of Human Rights, initiat- ed by Protocols 11 and 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights, is presently the subject of further reflection by its State Parties. The activ- ism of the Court in some areas, such as immigration and social security policies come under increasing criticism by scholars and States. However, the problems facing the Court are wider; they involve broad issues relat- ing to the future status of the Court and its effectiveness as a human rights protection mechanism. The present article cannot address thoroughly with such complex issues. Rather, its aim is to offer an overview of recent de- velopments subsequent to Protocol no. 14 to the Convention and to reflect upon prospects for deeper reforms with a view to streamlining the Court’s functioning in the ever evolving European human rights protection con- text.

PDF

___

E. BATES, The Evolution of the European Convention on Human Rights. From its Inception to the Creation of a Permanent Court of Human Rights, Oxford University Press, 2010.
M. BOSSUYT, “Should the Strasbourg Court exercise more self- restraint? On the extension of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights to social security regulations”, Human Rights Law Journal, 2007, pp. 321-332.
M. BOSSUYT, “You cannot try them, you cannot detain them and you cannot deport them”, Journal des tribunaux, 2012, pp. 352-355.
N.P. ENGEL, “Mehr Transparenz für die Wahrung professioneller Qualität bei den Richter-Wahlen zum EGMR”, Europaische Grundrechte Zeitschrift, 2012, p. 487.
R. ERGEC, Protection européenne et internationale des droits de l’homme, Bruxelles, Bruylant, 2006, p. 135.
J.-F. FLAUSS, “Les élections des juges à la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme”, Revue. Trim. D.H., 2008, p. 713.
P. LEUPRECHT, “Albert Weitzel et l'adhésion de la Russie au Con- seil de l'Europe” in Mélages en hommage à Albert Weitzel. L'Europe des droits fondamentaux, Paris, Pedone, 2013 (to be published).
D. TAMM, “The History of the Court of Justice of the European Un- ion Since its Origin”, in Court of Justice of the European Union (ed.). The Court of justice and the Construction of Europe: Analyses and Perspec- tives on Sixty Years of Case-Law, Amazon Kindle, locations 362-72.
J.-M. SAUVET, “Le rôle du comité 255 dans la sélection du juge de l’Union”, in Court of Justice of the European Union (ed.), The Court of Justice and the Construction of Europe: Analyses and Perspectives on Sixty Years of Case-law, Springer, 2013, Amazon Kindle, location 3019- 30.
L. WILDHABER, “A Constitutional Future for the European Court of Human Rights?”, in L. WILDHABER, The European Court of Human Rights, Kehl, N.P. Engel, 2006, p. 113-126.