Non-Pecuniary Damages within the Framework of the Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court

Ufuk Ramazan Çakmak

Makale detayları

Non-Pecuniary Damages within the Framework of the Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court

Yazarlar:

Ufuk Ramazan Çakmak

Yayıncı:

Süleyman Demirel University

Ana Başlıklar:

Uluslararası İnsani ve İnsan Hakları Hukuku

Dergi:

Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.14 Issue 2, pp.1093-1120

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001334685

pISSN:

2146-7129

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 Under the European Convention on Human Rights ECHR or Convention, one of the ways of redressing non-pecuniary damage is the payment of compensation. Compensation is intended to compensate for non-pecuniary damage of a non-pecuniary nature, such as uncertainty, distress, suffering, etc. arising from a breach. On 28 March 2007, the Implementing Instructions on Requests for Equitable Remedies stated that if non-pecuniary damage is established and the European Court of Human Rights ECHR or the Court decides that non-pecuniary damage is necessary, it will determine non-pecuniary damage on the basis of equity. In addition to equity, it is possible to say that some factors play a role in the determination of non-pecuniary damage. These factors are the seriousness of the violation, the applicants situation and local economic conditions. Although the measure of proof required by the Court in order to award non-pecuniary damages is not as strict as in the case of pecuniary damages, it is possible to say that the principle of prohibition of enrichment also applies to non-pecuniary damages. The Constitutional Court applies the principle of non-enrichment in its assessment of compensation, just like the ECtHR. Moral damage is not measurable like material damage. Therefore, unlike material damage, it is not possible to demonstrate moral damage with certain documents. For this reason, the Constitutional Court, like the ECtHR, is more flexible in its assessment of non-pecuniary damage in determining whether a non-pecuniary damage has occurred and whether there is a causal link between the violation and the damage.

 Under the European Convention on Human Rights ECHR or Convention, one of the ways of redressing non-pecuniary damage is the payment of compensation. Compensation is intended to compensate for non-pecuniary damage of a non-pecuniary nature, such as uncertainty, distress, suffering, etc. arising from a breach. On 28 March 2007, the Implementing Instructions on Requests for Equitable Remedies stated that if non-pecuniary damage is established and the European Court of Human Rights ECHR or the Court decides that non-pecuniary damage is necessary, it will determine non-pecuniary damage on the basis of equity. In addition to equity, it is possible to say that some factors play a role in the determination of non-pecuniary damage. These factors are the seriousness of the violation, the applicants situation and local economic conditions. Although the measure of proof required by the Court in order to award non-pecuniary damages is not as strict as in the case of pecuniary damages, it is possible to say that the principle of prohibition of enrichment also applies to non-pecuniary damages. The Constitutional Court applies the principle of non-enrichment in its assessment of compensation, just like the ECtHR. Moral damage is not measurable like material damage. Therefore, unlike material damage, it is not possible to demonstrate moral damage with certain documents. For this reason, the Constitutional Court, like the ECtHR, is more flexible in its assessment of non-pecuniary damage in determining whether a non-pecuniary damage has occurred and whether there is a causal link between the violation and the damage.

 Under the European Convention on Human Rights ECHR or Convention, one of the ways of redressing non-pecuniary damage is the payment of compensation. Compensation is intended to compensate for non-pecuniary damage of a non-pecuniary nature, such as uncertainty, distress, suffering, etc. arising from a breach. On 28 March 2007, the Implementing Instructions on Requests for Equitable Remedies stated that if non-pecuniary damage is established and the European Court of Human Rights ECHR or the Court decides that non-pecuniary damage is necessary, it will determine non-pecuniary damage on the basis of equity. In addition to equity, it is possible to say that some factors play a role in the determination of non-pecuniary damage. These factors are the seriousness of the violation, the applicants situation and local economic conditions. Although the measure of proof required by the Court in order to award non-pecuniary damages is not as strict as in the case of pecuniary damages, it is possible to say that the principle of prohibition of enrichment also applies to non-pecuniary damages. The Constitutional Court applies the principle of non-enrichment in its assessment of compensation, just like the ECtHR. Moral damage is not measurable like material damage. Therefore, unlike material damage, it is not possible to demonstrate moral damage with certain documents. For this reason, the Constitutional Court, like the ECtHR, is more flexible in its assessment of non-pecuniary damage in determining whether a non-pecuniary damage has occurred and whether there is a causal link between the violation and the damage.

 Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi AİHS veya Sözleşme sisteminde manevi zararın giderilmesinin yollarından biri tazminat ödenmesidir. Manevi tazminat, bir ihlâlden kaynaklanan belirsizlik, sıkıntı, ıstırap gibi manevi nitelikte bir zararın giderilmesine yöneliktir. 28 Mart 2007de yayımlanan Hakkaniyete Uygun Tatmin Taleplerine İlişkin Uygulama Talimatında bir manevi zararın tespit edilmesi ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesinin AİHM veya Mahkeme manevi tazminatın gerekli olduğuna karar vermesi halinde hakkaniyet temelinde manevi tazminatı belirleyeceği ifade edilmiştir. Hakkaniyetin yanı sıra manevi tazminatın belirlenmesinde bazı faktörlerin rol oynadığını söylemek mümkündür. Bu faktörler ihlâlin ciddiyeti, başvuranın durumu ve yerel ekonomik koşullardır. Mahkemenin manevi tazminata hükmedebilmek için aradığı ispat ölçüsü, maddi tazminattaki kadar sıkı olmamakla birlikte zenginleşme yasağı prensibinin manevi tazminat için de geçerli olduğunu söylemek mümkündür. Anayasa Mahkemesi de tazminata ilişkin değerlendirmesinde tıpkı AİHM gibi zenginleşme yasağı prensibini uygulamaktadır. Manevi zarar, maddi zarar gibi ölçülebilir nitelikte değildir. Bu nedenle maddi zararda olduğunun aksine manevi zararın birtakım belgelerle ortaya konulması pek mümkün değildir. Bu nedenle Anayasa Mahkemesi de AİHM gibi manevi tazminata ilişkin değerlendirmesinde manevi bir zararın meydana gelip gelmediğinin ve ihlâl ile zarar arasında illiyet bağının olup olmadığının tespitinde daha esnek davranmaktadır.

Makale detayları

Non-Pecuniary Damages within the Framework of the Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court

Yazarlar:

Ufuk Ramazan Çakmak

Yayıncı:

Süleyman Demirel University

Ana Başlıklar:

Uluslararası İnsani ve İnsan Hakları Hukuku

Dergi:

Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.14 Issue 2, pp.1093-1120

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001334685

pISSN:

2146-7129

Non-pecuniary damages

European Court of Human Rights

Constitutional CourtManevi Tazminat

AİHM

Anayasa Mahkemesi

Sayı

Makale detayları

Non-Pecuniary Damages within the Framework of the Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court

Yazarlar: Ufuk Ramazan Çakmak

Yayıncı: Süleyman Demirel University

Ana Başlıklar: Uluslararası İnsani ve İnsan Hakları Hukuku

Dergi: Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.14 Issue 2, pp.1093-1120

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 12/2024

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001334685

pISSN: 2146-7129

Non-pecuniary damages

European Court of Human Rights

Constitutional CourtManevi Tazminat

AİHM

Anayasa Mahkemesi

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Ufuk Ramazan Çakmak

Yayıncı:

Süleyman Demirel University

Ana Başlıklar:

Uluslararası İnsani ve İnsan Hakları Hukuku

Dergi:

Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.14 Issue 2, pp.1093-1120

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001334685

pISSN:

2146-7129