Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/annales.2018.67.0003   IUP :10.26650/annales.2018.67.0003    Tam Metin (PDF)

non bis in idem Nasıl Anlaşılmalı?: idem Unsurunun AIHM’e Göre Yorumu

Tuba Kelep Pekmez

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesinin non bis in idem ilkesi bağlamında idem kavramının yorumlanmasında temel olarak üç yaklaşımı bulunmaktadır. Bunlar “aynı davranış testi”, “esaslı unsurlar testi” ve “aynı hareket testi”dir. Bu üç yorum da eleştiriye son derece açıktır. Bu bağlamda maddi ceza hukuku ve ceza muhakemesi hukuklarının uygulanmasında fiil kavramının bu iki hukuk bakımından birbirinden ayrılması gereklidir. Neyin idem kavramını oluşturduğuna karar vermek için muhakemesel fiil kavramı göz önünde bulundurulmalıdır. Ayrıca idem kavramının somut ve tutarlı uygulanması idem ve aynı idem kavramlarının farklılaştırılması yoluyla sağlanacaktır. 

DOI :10.26650/annales.2018.67.0003   IUP :10.26650/annales.2018.67.0003    Tam Metin (PDF)

How to Understand non bis in idem?: The Element of idem According to the ECtHR

Tuba Kelep Pekmez

The European Court of Human Rights essentially has three approaches on the issue of the interpretation of idem within the context of the non bis in idem principle, namely “same conduct test”, “essential elements test” and “same act test”. These three interpretations are highly open to criticism. In this regard, it is clear that a new concept is necessary to distinguish act in terms of substantive criminal law and act in procedural criminal law practice. In order to determine what constitutes an idem, one should consider the concept of “procedural act”. Moreover, I contend that providing a concrete and consistent interpretation of idem depends on the differentiation of the terms idem and same idem. 


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Books & Articles google scholar
  • Bahçeci, Barış: “Vergi Cezalarında Ne Bis In Idem”, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol: 67, No: 2, 2018, pp. 253-278. google scholar
  • Bockel, Bas Van: “Introduction and Set-Up of the Study”, Ne bis in idem in EU Law, Ed. by: Bas Van Bockel, Cambridge University Press, 2016, pp. 1-12. google scholar
  • Bockel, Bas Van: “The European ne bis in idem Principle: Substance, Sources and Scope”,Ne bis in idem in EU Law, Ed. by: Bas Van Bockel, Cambridge University Press, 2016, pp. 13-53 Carter, Linda E: “The Principle of Complementarity and the International Criminal Court: The Role of Ne Bis in Idem”, Santa Clare Law Journal of International Law, Vol: 8, No: 1, 2010, pp. 165-198. google scholar
  • de La Cuesta José Luis / Eser Albin : “Concurrent national and international criminal jurisdiction and the principle ‘ne bis in idem’”, Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal, Vol. 72, 2001/3-4, pp. 753-764. google scholar
  • Fletcher, Maria: “Some Developments to the ne bis in idem Principle in the European Union: Criminal Proceedings Against Hüseyn Gözütok and Klaus Brügge”, The Modern Law Review, Vol. 66, No. 5, September 2003, pp. 769-780. google scholar
  • Greco, Luis: Strafprozesstheorie und materielle Rechtskraft: Grundlagen und Dogmatik des Tatbegriffs, des Strafklage, verbrauchs und derWiederaufnahme im Strafverfahrensrecht, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 2015. google scholar
  • Groussot Xavier / Ericsson Angelica: “Ne bis in Idem in the EU and ECHR Legal Orders A Matter of Uniform Interpretation”, Ne bis in idem in EU Law, Ed. by: Bas Van Bockel, Cambridge University Press, 2016, pp. 53-102. google scholar
  • Kindhäuser, Urs: Strafprozessrecht, 3. Auflage, 2013. google scholar
  • Lee, Kyung-Lyul: Die Präzisierung der “Tateinheit” und Reichweite des Strafklage, verbrauchs nach der Entscheidung BGHSt 40, 138 zum “Fortsetzungszusammenhang”, Logos, Berlin, 2002. google scholar
  • Mansdörfer, Marco: Das Prinzip des ne bis in idem im europäischen Strafrecht, Dencker & Humblot, Berlin, 2004. google scholar
  • Neagu, Norel: “The Ne Bis in Idem Principle in the Interpretation of European Courts: Towards Uniform Interpretation”, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 25, 2012, pp. 955-977. google scholar
  • Ravasi, Elisa: Human Rights Protection by te ECtHR and the ECJ: A Comparative Analyisis in Light of the Equivalency Doctrine, Boston Brill, 2017. google scholar
  • Roxin/ Schünemannn: Strafverfahrensrecht, 29. Ed,. München, Beck, 2017. google scholar
  • Schomburg, Wolfgang: Germany, “Concurrent National and International Criminal Jurisdiction and the Principle “ne bis in idem””, Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal, Vol. 73, 2002/3, pp. 941-964. google scholar
  • Schomburg, Wolfgang: “Ne bis in idem. Vom Auslieferungshindernis zum internationalen strafrechtlichen Doppelverfolgungsverbot als EU-Grundrecht. Eine Einführung anhand von Texten”, “Ne bis in idem” in Europa, Ed. by: Gudrun Hochmayr, Nomos, 2015, pp. 9-26. google scholar
  • Spinellis, Dionysios: “Global Report the ne bis in idem Principle in “Global” Instruments”, Revue international de droit pénal, Vol. 73, 2002/3, pp. 1149-1162. google scholar
  • Wyngaert, Christine van den / Stessens, Guy: “The International Non Bis In Idem Principle: Resolving Some of the Unanswered Questions”, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol: 48, No: 4, October 1999, pp. 779-804. google scholar
  • Online Resources google scholar
  • Beck’scher Online Kommentar Grundgesetz, Herausgegeben von Epping/Hillgruber, 30. Ed. 2016, § 103, Rn. 44 (BeckOK GG/Radtke-Hagemeier, §103). https://beck-online.beck.de/ Dokument?vpath=bibdata%2Fkomm%2Fbeckokgg_40%2Fgg%2Fcont%2Fbeckokgg.gg.a103. htm google scholar
  • The Principle of Ne Bis in Idem in Criminal Matters in the Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, (Çevrimiçi) http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/doclibrary/Eurojustframework/caselawanalysis/The%20principle%20of%20Ne%20Bis%20in%20Idem%20 in%20criminal%20matters%20in%20the%20case%20law%20of%20the%20Court%20of%20 Justice%20of%20the%20EU%20(Sept.%202017)/2017-09_CJEU-CaseLaw-NeBisInIdem_ EN.pdf 27.03.2019 google scholar
  • https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf 17.01.2019 google scholar
  • https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Non_bis_in_idem_ENG.pdf Guide on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights, (Çevrimiçi) https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_4_Protocol_7_ENG.pdf , 27.03.2019 google scholar
  • Cases google scholar
  • Bachmaier v. Austria, 2 September 2004. google scholar
  • Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976. google scholar
  • Franz Fischer v. Austria, 29 May 2001. google scholar
  • Garretta v. France, 4 March 2008. google scholar
  • Gradinger v. Austria, 23 October 1995. google scholar
  • Hauser-Sporn v. Austria, 7 December 2006. google scholar
  • Sailer v. Austria, 6 June 2002. google scholar
  • Manasson v. Sweden, 8 April 2003. google scholar
  • Oliveira v. Switzerland, 30 July 1998. google scholar
  • Schutte v. Austria, 26 July 2007. google scholar
  • W.F. v. Austria, 30 May 2002. google scholar
  • Zolotukhin v. Russia, 10 February 2009. google scholar

Atıflar

Biçimlendirilmiş bir atıfı kopyalayıp yapıştırın veya seçtiğiniz biçimde dışa aktarmak için seçeneklerden birini kullanın


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Pekmez, T. (2018). non bis in idem Nasıl Anlaşılmalı?: idem Unsurunun AIHM’e Göre Yorumu. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, 0(67), 31-41. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2018.67.0003


AMA

Pekmez T. non bis in idem Nasıl Anlaşılmalı?: idem Unsurunun AIHM’e Göre Yorumu. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul. 2018;0(67):31-41. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2018.67.0003


ABNT

Pekmez, T. non bis in idem Nasıl Anlaşılmalı?: idem Unsurunun AIHM’e Göre Yorumu. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 67, p. 31-41, 2018.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Pekmez, Tuba Kelep,. 2018. “non bis in idem Nasıl Anlaşılmalı?: idem Unsurunun AIHM’e Göre Yorumu.” Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul 0, no. 67: 31-41. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2018.67.0003


Chicago: Humanities Style

Pekmez, Tuba Kelep,. non bis in idem Nasıl Anlaşılmalı?: idem Unsurunun AIHM’e Göre Yorumu.” Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul 0, no. 67 (Aug. 2022): 31-41. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2018.67.0003


Harvard: Australian Style

Pekmez, T 2018, 'non bis in idem Nasıl Anlaşılmalı?: idem Unsurunun AIHM’e Göre Yorumu', Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, vol. 0, no. 67, pp. 31-41, viewed 17 Aug. 2022, https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2018.67.0003


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Pekmez, T. (2018) ‘non bis in idem Nasıl Anlaşılmalı?: idem Unsurunun AIHM’e Göre Yorumu’, Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, 0(67), pp. 31-41. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2018.67.0003 (17 Aug. 2022).


MLA

Pekmez, Tuba Kelep,. non bis in idem Nasıl Anlaşılmalı?: idem Unsurunun AIHM’e Göre Yorumu.” Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, vol. 0, no. 67, 2018, pp. 31-41. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2018.67.0003


Vancouver

Pekmez T. non bis in idem Nasıl Anlaşılmalı?: idem Unsurunun AIHM’e Göre Yorumu. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul [Internet]. 17 Aug. 2022 [cited 17 Aug. 2022];0(67):31-41. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2018.67.0003 doi: 10.26650/annales.2018.67.0003


ISNAD

Pekmez, Tuba Kelep. non bis in idem Nasıl Anlaşılmalı?: idem Unsurunun AIHM’e Göre Yorumu”. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul 0/67 (Aug. 2022): 31-41. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2018.67.0003



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim13.06.2019
Kabul10.09.2019

LİSANS


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


PAYLAŞ




İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, uluslararası yayıncılık standartları ve etiğine uygun olarak, yüksek kalitede bilimsel dergi ve kitapların yayınlanmasıyla giderek artan bilimsel bilginin yayılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları açık erişimli, ticari olmayan, bilimsel yayıncılığı takip etmektedir.