The European Convention Of Human Rights And The Protection Of Minorities
Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi ve Azınlıkların Korunması
Mauren MACOOUN
The paper deals with the protection of minorities by the ECHR and contains a presentation of the case Aksu v. Turkey of 05/03/2012. One challenge to the protection of minorities is the term of „minority“ itself. For lack of an uniform definition of this term, it is up to the member states to acknowledge minorities as such, although they are present in nearly every EU member state. The ECHR does not provide for protection of minorities explicitly. Art. 14 ECHR only names a „national minority“ as a prohibited distinguishing feature. A number of freedoms, including those enshrined in Art. 8, 9, 10 and 11 ECHR, warrant protection against discrimination in connection with Art. 14 ECHR. But this does not (yet) lead to a positive obligation for the member states, although Art. 14 ECHR – in some cases – can lead to a right to indiscriminate aid by the member states. In Aksu v. Turkey, the complainant, a Roma living in Ankara, claims an infringement of Art. 8 and 14 ECHR. He objects to two facts of a case: Firstly a book called „The Gypsies of Turkey“ allegedly containing discriminatory statements on Roma, whereby he feels infringed upon his personality. Secondly, he contests a dictionary for children, which allegedly describes the Roma in a discriminatory manner. Both publications were funded by the state. The complainants’ actions had been dismissed by all Turkish courts.
Protection of Minorities, Aksu v. Turkey, Discrimination, Roma, Art. 14 ECHR.
Azınlıkların korunması konusunda bir engel “azınlık” kavramının kendisidir. Bu kavramın yeknesak bir tanımının olmayışı nedeniyle üye devletlerin neredeyse hepsinde azınlıklar mevcut olmasına rağmen azınlıkların tanınması üye devletlerin kendilerine bağlıdır. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi (“Sözleşme”) açık bir şekilde azınlıklara koruma sağlamamaktadır. Sözleşme’nin 14. maddesinde adı geçen “ulusal azınlık” ayrımcılık yasağında sadece ayırt edici bir özelliktir. Sözleşme’nin 8., 9., 10. ve 11. maddelerinde saygın bir yeri olan özgürlükler dahil bir çok özgürlük 14. madde çerçevesinde ayrımcılığa karşı koruma güvencesini haizdir. Bazı davalarda 14. Madde, ayrımcılığa uğramamak için devletten yardım alma hakkı sağlamasına rağmen (henüz) üye devletlere pozitif bir sorumluluk yüklememektedir. Aksu Türkiye’ye karşı davasında, Ankara’da yaşayan bir Roman birey olan başvuran, Sözleşme’nin 8. ve 14. maddelerince korunan haklarının ihlal edildiğini iddia etmiştir. Bir davada iki gerçeğe karşı çıkmaktadır: İlk olarak “Türkiye’deki Çingeneler” isimli kitabın Roman bireylere karşı, başvuranın kişiliğini incinmiş hissettiği ayrımcı ifadeler içerdiğini iddia etmektedir. İkinci olarak çocuklar için hazırlanmış olan bir sözlükte “Roman” kelimesinin ayrımcı bir şekilde tanımlandığını belirtmiştir. İki yayımı da devlet finanse etmiştir. Başvuranın itirazları tüm Türk mahkemeleri tarafından reddedilmiştir.
Azınlıkların Korunması, Aksu Türkiye’ye Karşı, Ayrımcılık, Roman.
I. Minorities
As the number of minorities in Europe is more than 300, which means that one out of seven Europeans is a member of a Minority, the Protection of these individuals as well as the protection of the group as a whole if of high importance1.
However the difficulties of protection just begin with a common definition of the term “Minority”. The European Court of Human Rights hasn´t formulated a legal definition of the scope of the Convention yet2. However, the Definition of the UN Special Rapporteur Francesco Capotorti from 1979 is accepted to a great extent3. This definition is based on the following criteria: First of all the group has to show a numerical inferiority in comparison to the minority population. Further the minority must not hold a domination position in the state of residence. This follows from the concerns of protection. Moreover Capotorti defines a minority as a group of people showing special ethnic, cultural, religious or linguistic features. There is no clear differentiation between the single features and especially the ethnic feature very wide. Still these features point out, that the term of minority as such is restricted and excludes people who differ from the minority for personal reasons (and not ethnical or cultural reasons) like being handicapped or homosexual. Furthermore the definition requires the citizenship of the state of residence. This criterion is controversial as it is up to the state to bestow citizenship4. All these criteria described thus far are referred to as objective criteria. In addition, the definition demand for the subjective feature of wishing to preserve features, which are characteristic for the minority´s identity. This so called principle of confession gives the individual person the possibility to decide freely, whether to belong to the minority or not5. Another difficulty is the question of how to deal with “new minorities”. In most states, the acceptance of migratory labourers as members of a minority is very low. For this reason long-term, strong and permanent connections to the state are required and new migrants are excluded by the definition6. This constitutes another difficulty in the protection of minorities and a solution still has to be found.
Many different cultures and languages exist in the area of application of the Convention. Minorities can be found in each member state except Luxemburg and Malta. The group of the Roma is the most common one and members live in almost every member state7. In Turkey one can find quite a variety of different ethnic groups like Turks, Kurds, Greeks, Armenians, the Jewish People, Roma and many more. Recognized are only Armenians, the Jewish People and Greeks8. In Germany four minorities are recognized: Danish, die friesische Volksgruppe, Roma and the das sorbish People9.
