THE OVERVIEW OF THE ARBITRAL AWARDS UNDER ARTICLE 1 OF THE ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL NO. 1 .TO ECHR AND BTS HOLDING, A.S. V. SLOVAKYA JUDGMENT OF ECtHR

Belkis Vural Çelenk

Makale detayları

THE OVERVIEW OF THE ARBITRAL AWARDS UNDER ARTICLE 1 OF THE ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL NO. 1 .TO ECHR AND BTS HOLDING, A.S. V. SLOVAKYA JUDGMENT OF ECtHR

Yazarlar:

Belkis Vural Çelenk

Yayıncı:

Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk

Dergi:

Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.27 Issue 3, pp.61-88

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

7/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001296681

pISSN:

2651-4141

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 Both in the scholar works and judicial decisions, a claim in a final and binding arbitral award is accepted under property rights of the claim owner. An arbitrary non-enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in a state party to ECHR was deemed violation of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No. 1 by ECtHR and the Court recently once again confirmed the importance of arbitral awards in the context of property rights. In particular, the Court emphasized that the arbitrary non-enforcement of an arbitral award in a state party upsets the fair balance which must be considered between the public interest and the personal interest of the owner of the property right. In this study, in the first part, the right to property guaranteed in the Article 1 of Additional Protocol No. 1 will be examined and in the second part, the approach of the ECtHR to arbitral awards as regards with Article 1 of Additional Protocol No. 1 and the recent BTS Holding, A.S. v. The Slovakia decision will be evaluated.

 Both in the scholar works and judicial decisions, a claim in a final and binding arbitral award is accepted under property rights of the claim owner. An arbitrary non-enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in a state party to ECHR was deemed violation of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No. 1 by ECtHR and the Court recently once again confirmed the importance of arbitral awards in the context of property rights. In particular, the Court emphasized that the arbitrary non-enforcement of an arbitral award in a state party upsets the fair balance which must be considered between the public interest and the personal interest of the owner of the property right. In this study, in the first part, the right to property guaranteed in the Article 1 of Additional Protocol No. 1 will be examined and in the second part, the approach of the ECtHR to arbitral awards as regards with Article 1 of Additional Protocol No. 1 and the recent BTS Holding, A.S. v. The Slovakia decision will be evaluated.

 Both in the scholar works and judicial decisions, a claim in a final and binding arbitral award is accepted under property rights of the claim owner. An arbitrary non-enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in a state party to ECHR was deemed violation of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No. 1 by ECtHR and the Court recently once again confirmed the importance of arbitral awards in the context of property rights. In particular, the Court emphasized that the arbitrary non-enforcement of an arbitral award in a state party upsets the fair balance which must be considered between the public interest and the personal interest of the owner of the property right. In this study, in the first part, the right to property guaranteed in the Article 1 of Additional Protocol No. 1 will be examined and in the second part, the approach of the ECtHR to arbitral awards as regards with Article 1 of Additional Protocol No. 1 and the recent BTS Holding, A.S. v. The Slovakia decision will be evaluated.

 Nihai ve bağlayıcı hakem kararlarında yer alan bir alacağın, alacak sahibinin mülkiyet hakkının bir parçası olduğu hem doktrinde hem de yargı kararlarında kabul edilmektedir. AİHM de yakın zamanda yabancı hakem kararlarının AİHSye taraf bir devlette keyfî olarak tenfiz edilmemesini 1 Nolu Ek Protokol 1. maddesinin ihlali saymış ve hakem kararlarının mülkiyet hakkı bağlamındaki önemini tekrar teyit etmiştir. Özellikle taraf bir devlette keyfî şekilde hakem kararının tenfiz edilmemesinin kamu yararı ile mülkiyet hakkı sahibinin kişisel yararı arasında gözetilmesi gereken adil dengeyi bozduğuna vurgu yapmıştır. Bu çalışmada ilk olarak 1 Nolu Ek Protokol 1. maddede teminat altına alınan mülkiyet hakkı ele alınacak olup ikinci kısımda ağırlıklı olarak AİHMnin 1 Nolu Ek Protokol 1. maddesi uyarınca hakem kararlarına yaklaşımı ve yakın tarihli BTS Holding, A.S. v. Slovakya kararı değerlendirme konusu yapılacaktır.

Makale detayları

THE OVERVIEW OF THE ARBITRAL AWARDS UNDER ARTICLE 1 OF THE ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL NO. 1 .TO ECHR AND BTS HOLDING, A.S. V. SLOVAKYA JUDGMENT OF ECtHR

Yazarlar:

Belkis Vural Çelenk

Yayıncı:

Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk

Dergi:

Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.27 Issue 3, pp.61-88

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

7/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001296681

pISSN:

2651-4141

Mülkiyet hakkı

hakem kararı

tenfiz

AİHM

adil denge.Mülkiyet hakkı

hakem kararı

tenfiz

AİHM

adil denge.

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Belkis Vural Çelenk

Yayıncı: Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University

Ana Başlıklar: Hukuk

Dergi: Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.27 Issue 3, pp.61-88

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 7/2023

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001296681

pISSN: 2651-4141

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Belkis Vural Çelenk

Yayıncı:

Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk

Dergi:

Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.27 Issue 3, pp.61-88

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

7/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001296681

pISSN:

2651-4141