Individual Applications to the ECtHR for Violations of the Right to a Fair Trial in Arbitration Proceedings
Hatice Selin Pürselim Arning, Emre ÇetinArbitration serves as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism that has developed with the leniency afforded by state courts. Individuals resort to arbitration due to its manifold advantages. Opting for arbitration reduces the influence of state courts in dispute resolution. However, given that arbitration proceedings are adversarial and binding on the parties, the expectation for a fair resolution persists. At the heart of this expectation is the right to a fair trial, arguably one of the most fundamental rights in contemporary judicial processes. Since arbitration provides for a mechanism independent of the state proceedings, questions arise as to whether arbitration proceedings are bound by the right to a fair trial and, if so, which authorities can be invoked in the event of its violation. In order to examine such questions, it is first necessary to determine whether the alleged violation of the right to a fair trial in arbitration proceedings can be brought before the European Court of Human Rights. For this assessment, it is necessary to analyse the criterias of admissibility set out in Articles 34-35 of the ECHR with respect to arbitral proceedings. Only two of these criteria require a different assessment in arbitral proceedings. Accordingly, our analysisislimited to the ratione personae and ratione loci jurisdiction of the ECHR. The ratione personae of the ECHR determines who can be the applicant and against which state the application can be brought. The ratione loci of the ECtHR, on the other hand, determines in which jurisdiction or on which territory the act that is the subject of the violation took place. Accordingly, this study analyses against which state an application for a violation of the right to a fair trial can be made in arbitral proceedings and for which state arbitral proceedings constitute the jurisdiction of the ECtHR in terms of venue.
Tahkim Yargılamasında Meydana Gelen Adil Yargılanma Hakkı İhlaline İstinaden AİHM’e Yapılabilecek Bireysel Başvurular
Hatice Selin Pürselim Arning, Emre ÇetinTahkim yargılaması, devlet mahkemelerinin müsamahasıyla gelişen alternatif uyuşmazlık çözüm yoludur. Kişiler, tahkimin devlet mahkemelerine nazaran sunduğu çeşitli avantajları göz önünde bulundurarak tahkime başvurmaktadır. Tahkim yoluna başvurunun kararlaştırılması, devlet mahkemelerinin uyuşmazlıkların çözümündeki etkisini azaltmaktadır. Buna karşın, tahkim yargılamasının -devlet mahkemelerinin yürüttüğü yargılamalarda olduğu gibi- çekişmeli olması ve sonucunda tarafları bağlayıcı karar verilmesi sebebiyle taraflar, tahkim yargılanmasında da uyuşmazlığın adil bir şekilde karara bağlanmasını beklenmektedir. Bu beklentinin odağı ise bir yargılama için vazgeçilmez hakların başında gelen adil yargılanma hakkıdır. Tahkim yargılaması, devlet yargısından bağımsız bir mekanizma öngörmesi sebebiyle bu yargılamaların adil yargılanma hakkına bağlı olup olmadığı, olması halinde meydana gelen hak ihlalleri karşısında hangi mercilere başvurulabileceği gibi sorular gündeme gelmektedir. Bu tür soruların incelenebilmesi için öncelikle tahkim yargılamasında meydana gelen adil yargılanma hakkı ihlali iddiasıyla Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’ne başvuru yapılıp yapılamayacağının belirlenmesi gerekmektedir. Bu değerlendirme için AİHS m. 34-35’de yer alan kabul edilebilirlik şartları, tahkim yargılaması bakımından incelenmelidir. Bu şartlardan yalnızca iki tanesi, tahkim yargılaması özelinde farklı değerlendirme yapılmasını gerektirmektedir. Bu doğrultuda, incelememizde AİHM’in kişi yönünden ve yer yönünden yargı yetkisi şartlarıyla sınırlandırılmıştır. AİHM’in kişi yönünden yargı yetkisi uyarınca kimlerin başvurucu olabileceği, başvurunun hangi devlet aleyhinde yapılabileceği belirlenmektedir. AİHM’in yer yönünden yargı yetkisi ise ihlale konu eylemin hangi devletin yetki alanında veya toprakları üzerinde gerçekleştiğini tayin etmektedir. Bu doğrultuda, çalışmamızda bir tahkim yargılamasında meydana gelen adil yargılanma hakkı ihlaline ilişkin olarak hangi devlet aleyhine başvuru yapılabileceği ve bir tahkim yargılamasının hangi devlet bakımından AİHM’in yer yönünden yargı yetkisini meydana getireceği incelenmiştir.
Despite originally emerging as an alternative to state courts, arbitration proceedings are increasingly becoming equivalent to state courts in dispute resolution due to the advantages they offer. The paramount expectation in arbitration proceedings is that the proceedings are conducted fairly, given that binding judgments are rendered on the merits of disputes. Ensuring a fair trial necessitates adherence to the right to a fair trial, although individual states may regulate the level of scrutiny of this right in arbitration proceedings differently. This study does not focus on the extent of violations of the right to a fair trial in arbitration proceedings but instead examines whether dissatisfied individuals, lacking adequate guarantees or remedies in their domestic legal systems for addressing such violations, may seek recourse to the European Court of Human Rights. The ongoing debate revolves around whether the right to a fair trial should be applicable in arbitration, as arbitration proceedings typically operate outside the purview of state courts. If applicable, the question arises whether parties can turn to the ECtHR in case of its violation.
To apply to the ECtHR for violations of the right to a fair trial within arbitration proceedings, one must meet the admissibility criteria stipulated in Articles 33–35 of the ECHR. Among these conditions, only the ECtHR’s jurisdiction ratione personae and ratione loci necessitate distinct evaluation concerning arbitration. Regarding other conditions, assessments mirror those for state courts. As parties to arbitral proceedings are usually natural persons, legal entities, nongovernmental organizations, or groups of persons, the ECtHR’s jurisdiction in personam requirement is satisfied. At this point, what is peculiar is the determination of the state against which the application is made since arbitration proceedings are independent of the state judiciary. In this context, for an application to be directed against a contracting state, the event giving rise to the violation that is the subject of the application must have been committed by public authorities or officials of the Contracting States, and the event must have occurred within the jurisdiction of the contracting state.
The determination of the country establishing the ECtHR’s personal jurisdiction in arbitration proceedings relies on which state’s courts apply the ECHR for review or assistance under the horizontal effect. Typically, this is the state agreed upon by parties as the seat of arbitration. Regarding territorial jurisdiction of arbitration proceedings, it is essential to ascertain the country where arbitration proceedings are considered within the jurisdiction. Arbitration proceedings are usually deemed within the jurisdiction of the country hosting the proceedings, as such countries facilitate the proceedings through their legal regulations, provide judicial assistance, and deliver judgments akin to state court rulings, which may be legally challenged through an action for annulment or other legal means.
The second possibility for potential violations of the right to a fair trial pertains to the recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards. Since these proceedings involve direct engagement by state courts and have ramifications in the enforcing country, violations may trigger the ECHR’s personal jurisdiction over the contracting state. In establishing jurisdiction in terms of venue in these cases, the focus is on judicial activities and their effects. This is because the ECtHR distinguishes the duty of the enforcement court from that of the court that performs supervision and assistance activities where arbitration is conducted. Consequently, the enforcing country usually holds jurisdiction. Accordingly, in enforcing or recognizing a foreign arbitral award in Turkish courts, Turkey may fall under the ECHR’s territorial jurisdiction due to violations of the right to a fair trial, both in assessing the award’s conformity and any violations occurring during enforcement proceedings.
