Protocol No. 15 of the Echr: What Does it Stand For?
AİHS 15. Ek Protokol: Ne Anlama Geliyor?
Onur Uraz
The paper aims to examine the motivations and justifications of Protocol no.15 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention), and its impact to implementation of the Convention when/if it enters into force. Despite the fact that State Parties have come to a consensus, the motivations that leads the change; and possible consequences of Protocol no.15 cause some concerns. Scholars and non-governmental organizations argued that Protocol no.15 might result in a weakening of human rights protection. In this context, addition of the `subsidiarity` and `margin of appreciation` principles to the preamble of the Convention; the shortened application time-limit; and the removal of the second `safeguard` of `significant disadvantage` clause have created the main controversies and concerns. This study shall examine the justifications and possible overall impact of the Protocol in the light of, not only official reasoning, but the concerns and arguments that have been brought up by the various actors during and before the drafting process.
European Convention on Human Rights, Protocol No.15, European Court of Human Rights, Subsidiarity, Margin of Appreciation.
Bu çalışma Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nde değişiklikler öngören 15. Protokol’ün hazırlanmasına yol açan etken ve nedenleri ve Protokol’ün yürürlüğe girmesi halinde uygulamada yaratacağı etkileri incelemektedir. Her ne kadar taraf devletler Protokol üzerinde görüş birliğine varmış olsalar da, değişime neden olan etkenler ve 15. Protokol’ün olası sonuçları bazı endişelere sebebiyet vermiştir. Bazı akademisyenler ve sivil toplum kuruluşları 15. Protokol’ün insan haklarının korunması bağlamında menfi etki doğurabileceğini, bu düzenlemenin taraf devletlerin hükümetleri tarafından mahkemenin kararlarına ve yerleşmiş uygulamalarına yapılan bir müdahale girişimi olduğunu öne sürmektedir. Bu kapsamda, ‘ikincillik’ ve ‘takdir sınırı’ prensiplerinin sözleşmenin önsözüne eklenmesi; kısaltılan başvuru süresi ve 35. maddede düzenlenen kabul edilebilirlik kriterine dair değişiklik, düşünce ayrılıklarına ve endişeye yol açan temel hususlar olarak göze çarpmaktadır. Bu nedenlerden ötürü makale Protokol’ün yalnızca resmi gerekçelendirmesini değil ve fakat kaleme alınma aşamasında ve öncesinde farklı uluslararası aktörler tarafından ortaya konan argümanları da göz önüne alarak, Protokol’ün hazırlanma nedenlerini ve doğurabileceği olası hukuki sonuçlarını tartışacaktır.
Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi, 15. Protokol, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, Yerindelik, İkincillik İlkesi, Takdir Sınırı Doktrini.
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this study is to discuss the grounds and impact of the changes that Protocol no. 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights1 (`Convention`) shall bring to the current structure and application of the Convention when/if it enters into force. The most important distinguishing feature of the Convention, which separates it from similar regional and international conventions, is the fact that it contains a significantly effective judicial control mechanism. In the early 1990's, this mechanism became insufficient because of the increase in the number of applications that the mechanism had to be dealt with. With the aim of solving this problem, several steps have been taken over the years. However, despite a viable decrease trend in the total number of pending applications particularly after Protocol no.14 entered into force, 100.350 cases are still pending before the Court.2
As Bratza, the former President of the European Court of Human Rights ('ECtHR' or 'Court'), stated 'failure to implement the Convention properly at national level is a primary source of the accumulation of meritorious cases which constitute the most serious problem that the Court has to cope with'.3 In this regard, many decisions of the Court have not been executed properly in the domestic scope and essential national legislative steps have not been taken by State Parties. This has caused the problem so-called 'repetitive' cases which constitutes almost sixty per cent of recent caseload of the Court.4 In addition, some of State Parties which are spearheaded by the United Kingdom ('UK') raised their concerns regarding the some other issues such as the procedures which are followed in the appointment of the Court's judges and role of the Court.5 In order to address the concerns, three high-level conferences (Interlaken, Izmir and Brighton) were held. The purpose of these conferences was to offer a reform for the European Court of Human Rights and, consequently, Protocol No.15 ('Protocol') was adopted in May 2013.
The Protocol amends the Preamble of the Convention by adding references to the principle of 'subsidiarity' and doctrine of the 'margin of appreciation'. It also envisages two modifications for the admissibility criteria that are set out in article 35 of the Convention. In this context, while the Protocol aims to shorten the time-limit of applications from six-months to four-months, it also removes the provision that prevents rejection of an application that has not been duly considered by a national court even if the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage. Finally, the Protocol removes parties' objection rights to the relinquishment of jurisdiction over a case by a Chamber in favour of the Grand Chamber; and replaces the upper age limit criteria for judges and requires that candidates' age be less than sixty-five years of age on the date for which Parliamentary Assembly has requested the lists of candidates.
