Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesinde Kamu Görevlisi Bilgi Uçuranların Korunmasına İlişkin Çerçevenin Yeniden Değerlendirilmesi

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 30 Sayı: 1, 205 - 228, 30.06.2024

Dimitrios Kagiaros Çevirmen: Barış Acun

https://doi.org/10.33433/maruhad.1445465

Öz

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi (AİHM veya Mahkeme), kamu görevlisi bilgi uçuranları Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nin 10. maddesinin koruma alanına dâhil etmiştir. Makale, Mahkemenin bu tür davalardaki ölçülülük yaklaşımını yeniden gözden geçirmesi gerektiğini savunmaktadır. Bir kamu görevlisi bilgi uçuranın ifade özgürlüğünün kısıtlanmasının demokratik bir toplumda gerekli olup olmadığını belirlerken Mahkeme, bilgi uçuranların kamu görevlisi olarak sahip oldukları yükümlülük ve sorumluluklarına karşı onların makalenin yarı kamusal gözlemci olarak tanımladığı işlevini (başka bir ifadeyle kamuyu ilgilendiren konularda bilgi vermedeki rollerini) tartmaktadır. Bazı durumlarda Mahkeme, bilgi uçuranların kamu kurumlarının hesap verebilirliğine yaptığı katkıdan ziyade onların hükûmete olan sadakat yükümlülüğüne öncelik vermektedir. Makale, Mahkemenin bilgi uçurmayı bir ifade olarak tanımasının temelini oluşturan esaslı sebebi başka bir ifadeyle bilgi uçuranın açığa vurduğu bilginin edinilmesindeki kitlenin menfaatini yeterince dikkate almadığı için bu yaklaşıma itiraz etmektedir. Makale, Mahkemenin bilgi uçuranların gözlemci işlevine öncelik vermesi gerektiğini savunmaktadır. Makale, AİHM’in bilgi uçurma davalarında ölçülülüğe ilişkin daha ilkeli bir yaklaşımı nasıl benimseyebileceğine dair önerilerde bulunarak sona ermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

ifade özgürlüğü, AİHS m. 10, bilgi uçuranlar, kamu yararına açığa vurma, ölçülülük

Teşekkür

Son derece güncel ve faydalı bu eseri Türkçeye çevirme fırsatını bana verdiği için Dr. Dimitrios Kagiaros’a teşekkür ederim.

Reassessing the Framework for the Protection of Civil Servant Whistleblowers in the European Court of Human Rights

Öz

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or Court) has included civil servant whistleblowers in the protective ambit of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The article argues that the Court should revisit its approach to proportionality in such cases. When determining whether a restriction to a civil servant whistleblower’s free speech was necessary in a democratic society, the Court weighs what the article identifies as the quasi-public watchdog function of whistleblowers (namely their role in imparting information on matters of public concern) against their duties and responsibilities as civil servants. In some instances, the Court gives primacy to whistleblowers’ duties of loyalty to the government over their contribution to the accountability of public bodies. The article challenges this approach on the basis that it fails to adequately consider the key justification that underpins the Court’s recognition of whistleblowing as speech, namely the audience interest in receiving the information the whistleblower discloses. The article argues that the Court should give primacy to the watchdog function of whistleblowers. It concludes by making suggestions on how the ECtHR can adopt a more principled approach to proportionality in whistleblowing cases.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Freedom of expression, Article 10 ECHR, whistleblowers, public interest disclosures, proportionality

Kaynakça

• Alexander Meiklejohn, Free Speech and Its Relation of Self-Government (Harper 1948).
• Alexander Meiklejohn, ‘The First Amendment is Absolute’ (1961) Supreme Court Review 245.
• Ashley Savage, Leaks, Whistleblowing and the Public Interest: The Law of Unauthorised Disclosures (Edward Elgar 2016) 7-23.
• C. Edwin Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech (Oxford University Press 1989).
• Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech (Free Press 1993) 130-131.
• Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 2300: Improving the protection of whistle-blowers all over Europe (1 Ekim 2019) para 5.
• Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (n 1) and Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (2019) OJ L305/17.
• Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Report by Rapporteur Sylvain Waserman of 16 Mart 2018.
• David Lewis, ‘The Council of Europe Resolution and Recommendation on the Protection of Whistleblowers’ (2010) 39(4) Industrial Law Journal 432.
• Davies and Freeland, Kahn-Freund’s Labour and the Law (3rd edn, Stevens Hamlyn Lecture Series 1983) 18.
• Dimitrios Kagiaros, ‘Protecting ‘National Security’ Whistleblowers in the Council of Europe: an Evaluation of Three Approaches on How to Balance National Security with Freedom of Expression’ (2015) 19 International Journal of Human Rights 408.
• Dirk Voorhoof, The Right to Freedom of Expression and Information under the European Human Rights System: Towards a More Transparent Democratic Society (European University Institute 2014).
• Dirk Voorhoof and Hannes Cannie, ‘Freedom of Expression and Information in Democratic Society: The Added but Fragile Value of the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2010) 72 International Communication Gazette 407.
• Dirk Voorhoof and Patrick Humblet, ’The Right to Freedom of Expression in the Workplace under Article 10 ECHR’ in Dorssemont, Lörcher and Schömann (eds.), The European Convention of Human Rights and the Employment Relation (Hart Publishing 2013).
• Eric R. Boot, ‘No Right to Classified Public Whistleblowing’ (2018) 31 Ratio Juris 70.
• Eric Barendt, Freedom of Speech (Oxford University Press 2007) 13.
• Fred Alford, Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Power (Cornell University Press 2001).
• Frederick Schauer, Free Speech: A Philosophical Inquiry (Cambridge University Press 1982) 86.
• Gobert and Punch, ‘Whistleblowers, the Public Interest and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998’ (2000) 63 Modern Law Review 25, 31.
• Hitoshi Nasu, ‘State Secrets Law and National Security’ (2015) 64 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 365.
• Inger Høedt-Rasmussen and Dirk Voorhoof, ‘Whistleblowing for Sustainable Democracy’ (2018) 36 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 3.
• Ioannis Kampourakis, ‘Protecting National Security Whistleblowers in the U.S. and in the ECtHR: The Limits of Balancing and the Social Value of Public Disclosures’ (April 2020), online SSRN database: <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3576036>
• Hunt-Matthes and Motarjemi, ‘How to Make Whistleblower Protection in Europe more Effective’ (Verfassungsblog, 18 August 2020) <https://verfassungsblog.de/how-to-make-whistleblower-protection-in-europe- more-effective>
• Jacob Rowbottom, ‘In the Shadow of the Big Media: Freedom of Expression, Participation and the Production of Knowledge Online’ (2014) Public Law 491, 495.
• Jean-Philippe Foegle, ‘Luxleaks and the Good Faith Whistleblower’ (Verfassungsblog, 15 November 2017) <https://verfassungsblog.de/luxleaks-and-the-good-faith-whistleblower>
• John Bowers et al, Whistleblowing: Law and Practice (Oxford University Press 2012) para 11.140.
• John Stuart Mill, On Liberty and Other Essays (Roberts, Green, 1864).
• Joseph Raz, ‘Freedom of Expression and Personal Identification’ (1991) 11 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 303, 308.
• Larry Alexander, ‘Free Speech and Speaker’s Intent’ (1995) 12(21) Constitutional Commentary 21.
• Laurens Lavrysen, Human Rights in a Positive State (Intersentia 2017) 233-239.
• Lewis and Fasterling, ‘Leaks, Legislation and Freedom of Speech: How Can the Law Effectively Promote Public Interest Whistleblowing’ (2014) 153(1) International Labour Review 71.
• Lucy Vickers, Freedom of Speech and Employment (Oxford University Press 2002).
• Paul Wragg,‘Free Speech Rights at Work: Resolving the Differences between Practice and Liberal Principle’(2015) 44 Industrial Law Journal 1.
• Rahul Sagar, Secrets and Leaks: The Dilemma of State Secrecy (Princeton University Press 2013) 133.
• Ronan Ó Fathaigh and Dirk Voorhoof, ‘Conviction for performance-art protest at war memorial did not violate Article 10) (Strasbourgobservers, 19 March 2018) <https://strasbourgobservers.com/2018/03/19/conviction-for-performance- art-protest-at-war-memorial-did-not-violate-article-10>
• Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (Harvard University Press 1977).
• Stavros Tsakyrakis, ‘Proportionality: An Assault on Human Rights’ (2009) 7(3) International Journal of Constitutional Law 468-493.
• Thomas Scanlon, ‘A Theory of Freedom of Expression’ (1972) 1(2) Philosophy & Public Affairs 204.
• Virginia Mantouvalou, “I Lost my Job Over a Facebook Post – Was that Fair?” Discipline and Dismissal for Social Media Activity’ (2019) 35 International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations 101.
• Wim Vandekerckhove, Whistleblowing and Organizational Social Responsibility: A Global Assessment (Ashgate 2006) 215.