Restriction of Freedom of Expression for the Purpose of Maintaining the Authority and Impartiality of the Juduciary: A Comparative Review within the Framework of Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights and Turkish Constitutional Court

Cemre Edip Yalçın

Makale detayları

Restriction of Freedom of Expression for the Purpose of Maintaining the Authority and Impartiality of the Juduciary: A Comparative Review within the Framework of Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights and Turkish Constitutional Court

Yazarlar:

Cemre Edip Yalçın

Yayıncı:

Sakarya University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk Teorisi | İçtihat ve Hukuki Yorum | Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi:

Sakarya Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 2, pp.1158-1197

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001303519

pISSN:

2147-768X

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 The restriction of freedom of expression for the purpose of maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary, at first glance, gives the impression of a more marginalized and narrowly applicable legitimate aim within the framework of the ECHR. However, this legitimate aim of restricting freedom of expression is closely related to the rule of law and necessities of a democratic society. Accordingly, the relationship between the limitation imposed on the basis of the legitimate aim in question and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR must be taken into account. A close examination of the EctHR case-law on the subject reveals that the Court makes a judgment regarding the criterion of necessity in a democratic society. The main issues addressed at this point are the margin of appreciation granted to states, how judicial power is indispensable in a democratic society, what distinctions are made between the statements against judiciary and who are the subjects of freedom of expression. When it comes to freedom of the press, a separate consideration is made in case of conflict with the presumption of innocence. Further to the ECtHRs approach, Article 26 of the Constitution, which is the corresponding provision of the mentioned legitimate aim in the Turkish national legislation, has been critically analyzed. The similarities and differences in the Constitutional Courts interpretation of the issue with that of the ECtHR are elucidated by referring to the prominent decisions of the Constitutional Court.

 The restriction of freedom of expression for the purpose of maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary, at first glance, gives the impression of a more marginalized and narrowly applicable legitimate aim within the framework of the ECHR. However, this legitimate aim of restricting freedom of expression is closely related to the rule of law and necessities of a democratic society. Accordingly, the relationship between the limitation imposed on the basis of the legitimate aim in question and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR must be taken into account. A close examination of the EctHR case-law on the subject reveals that the Court makes a judgment regarding the criterion of necessity in a democratic society. The main issues addressed at this point are the margin of appreciation granted to states, how judicial power is indispensable in a democratic society, what distinctions are made between the statements against judiciary and who are the subjects of freedom of expression. When it comes to freedom of the press, a separate consideration is made in case of conflict with the presumption of innocence. Further to the ECtHRs approach, Article 26 of the Constitution, which is the corresponding provision of the mentioned legitimate aim in the Turkish national legislation, has been critically analyzed. The similarities and differences in the Constitutional Courts interpretation of the issue with that of the ECtHR are elucidated by referring to the prominent decisions of the Constitutional Court.

 The restriction of freedom of expression for the purpose of maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary, at first glance, gives the impression of a more marginalized and narrowly applicable legitimate aim within the framework of the ECHR. However, this legitimate aim of restricting freedom of expression is closely related to the rule of law and necessities of a democratic society. Accordingly, the relationship between the limitation imposed on the basis of the legitimate aim in question and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR must be taken into account. A close examination of the EctHR case-law on the subject reveals that the Court makes a judgment regarding the criterion of necessity in a democratic society. The main issues addressed at this point are the margin of appreciation granted to states, how judicial power is indispensable in a democratic society, what distinctions are made between the statements against judiciary and who are the subjects of freedom of expression. When it comes to freedom of the press, a separate consideration is made in case of conflict with the presumption of innocence. Further to the ECtHRs approach, Article 26 of the Constitution, which is the corresponding provision of the mentioned legitimate aim in the Turkish national legislation, has been critically analyzed. The similarities and differences in the Constitutional Courts interpretation of the issue with that of the ECtHR are elucidated by referring to the prominent decisions of the Constitutional Court.

 İlk bakışta, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi AİHS çerçevesinde ifade özgürlüğünün, yargı erkinin otoritesi ve tarafsızlığının korunması amacıyla sınırlandırılması diğer sınırlandırma amaçlarına kıyasla daha az dikkat çeken ve dar uygulama alanı bulabilen bir meşru sınırlandırma amacı izlenimi vermektedir. Oysaki ifade özgürlüğüne getirilen bu meşru sınırlandırma amacı, hukuk devleti ilkesi ve demokratik toplum gereklilikleriyle de yakından ilişkilidir. Bu yönüyle söz konusu meşru amaca dayanılarak getirilen sınırlandırmanın evleviyetle AİHS 6. madde kapsamında adil yargılanma hakkıyla kurduğu ilişki göz önünde bulundurulmalıdır. Konuya ilişkin Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi AİHM içtihadı yakından incelendiğinde, Mahkemenin demokratik toplumda gereklilik ölçütü yönünden bir muhakeme yaptığı görülmektedir. Bu noktada üzerinde durulan başlıca meselelerse devletlere tanınan takdir alanı, yargı erkinin demokratik toplum bakımından nasıl vazgeçilmez olduğu, yargı erkine yöneltilen ifadeler arasında ne gibi ayrımlar yapıldığı ve ifade özgürlüğünün öznelerinin kimler olduğudur. Basın özgürlüğü özelindeyse masumiyet karinesiyle çatışma hâlinde ayrıca bir değerlendirme yapılmaktadır. Bu çalışmada da AİHMnin yaklaşımının yanı sıra ilgili meşru amacın Türk ulusal mevzuatındaki karşılığı olan Anayasanın 26. hükmü eleştirel bir şekilde ele alınmıştır. Anayasa Mahkemesinin AYM konuyla ilgili öne çıkan kararlarından hareket edilerek AYMnin meseleyi yorumlayış biçiminin AİHM ile benzerlikleri ve farklılıkları aydınlatılmaya çalışılmıştır.

Makale detayları

Restriction of Freedom of Expression for the Purpose of Maintaining the Authority and Impartiality of the Juduciary: A Comparative Review within the Framework of Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights and Turkish Constitutional Court

Yazarlar:

Cemre Edip Yalçın

Yayıncı:

Sakarya University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk Teorisi | İçtihat ve Hukuki Yorum | Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi:

Sakarya Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 2, pp.1158-1197

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001303519

pISSN:

2147-768X

Juduciary

Authority of Juduciary

Impartiality of Juduciary

Freedom of Expression

European Court of Human Rights

Turkish Constitutional Court.Yargı Erki

Yargı Otoritesi

Yargı Tarafsızlığı

İfade Özgürlüğü

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi

Anayasa Mahkemesi.

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Cemre Edip Yalçın

Yayıncı: Sakarya University

Ana Başlıklar: Hukuk Teorisi | İçtihat ve Hukuki Yorum | Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi: Sakarya Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 2, pp.1158-1197

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 12/2023

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001303519

pISSN: 2147-768X

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Cemre Edip Yalçın

Yayıncı:

Sakarya University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk Teorisi | İçtihat ve Hukuki Yorum | Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi:

Sakarya Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 2, pp.1158-1197

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001303519

pISSN:

2147-768X