Suchergebnisse

This article focuses on the so-called "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice" (ASFJ), namely the policy field of the European Union (EU) that covers judicial and police cooperation, migration and asylum policies and the control of external borders. The article explores how the AFSJ has emerged and how, within it, the relationship between freedom and security has evolved over time and brought about a shift towards a "Security Union". Considering the whole process of European integration and compared with other areas such as economic integration, the policy area today covered by the AFSJ started to develop relatively late. However, during the last two decades, it has advanced to one of the most dynamic policy fields within the EU. During this process, a critical shift has occurred. At the very beginning of the construction of this area, freedom (of movement) as one of the four freedoms of the common market was the core value and objective to be realised. Although a close link between freedom and security was established since the beginning, "security" (and "justice"), were seen as supporting means functional to the realisation of the freedom of movement. During the affirmation and expansion of the AFSJ, however, security has more and more infiltrated the space of freedom and justice and has become an aim in itself. Out of the AFSJ, thus, a "Security Union" has emerged as the vision to guide the development of EU integration in the upcoming years.

ÖZETBu tez Amsterdam antlaşması ile ortaya sunulan Avrupa özgürlük, güvenlik ve adalet bölgesi(AÖGAB) gerçekleşmesini araştırma ve Lisbon antlaşmasıyla AÖGAB'ın tüm yapısına sunulan değişiklikleri değerlendirme amacı taşımaktadır. Burada AÖGAB'in kurumsal yapısı, karar verme yöntemi, hukuki enstrümanların temel yapısı ve hukuki efekti, her bir bölgedeki gelişmeler ve sonda bireysellerin hukuki korunması durumu incelenmiş. Bölge araştırması AÖGAB'in Amsterdam antlaşmasında hedefe alındığı ve söz verildiği gibi başarılı kurulmadığını tespıt etmiş. Değerlendirme AÖGAB'in mevcut sisteminde noksanlar tespit etmiş. AÖGAB'in mevcut sistem boşlukları şunlardır: AÖGAB'in siyaset alanlarının Avrupa Birliğinin farklı sütununda bulunması karışıklığa ve şeffaflık eksikliğine yol açıyor; üçüncü sütün hukuki enstrümanların temel yapısı ve hukuki etkisi verimsizliğe yol açıyor; Avrupa Parlamentosunun karar verme mekanizmasında bulunmaması üçüncü sütun hukuki enstrümanların gayri meşruluğuna yol açıyor; Avrupa Adalet divanının AÖGAB'in IV' üncü başlık ve üçüncü sütun önlemleri üzere sınırlı ön duruşma yetkisi ve üçüncü sütun organları fiilleri üzere ön duruşma yetkisizliği; bireysellere üçüncü sütun önlemleri direk olarak itiraz etme hakı verilmemiş. Lizbon Antlaşması AÖGAB'in hukuki, işletme ve yargılama sistemini birleştiriyor. Antlaşma AÖGAB'inde hukuki enstrümanların homojen bir yapısını oluşturuyor, ortak karar verme prosedürünü tüm hukuki fiillere uyguluyor, Avrupa Adalet Divanının yetkisini genişletiyor ve Temel haklar tüzüğünü AB'ye sunuyor. Bu temel haklar sorumluluğu taşıyan ve hukuki incelenen önlemleri ile daha verimli, şefaf, hukuki meşru bir bölgenin oluşmasına yardımcı olacaktır.ABSTRACTThe primary aim of the thesis was to examine the realisation of the Area of freedom, security and justice in the European Union introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam and to evaluate the modifications introduced by the Lisbon Treaty to the whole structure of the AFSJ. The institutional structure, the decision making process, the nature and legal effects of the legal instruments, the developments in each of the areas and finally the situation with judicial protection of individuals in the AFSJ have been examined. The research of the area revealed that the establishment of the AFSJ was not completed successfully as was intended and promised by the Treaty of Amsterdam. The evaluation detected the shortcomings in the present system of the AFSJ. The gaps in the present system of the AFSJ are: the existence of AFSJ policies within different pillars of the EU leads to complexity and to the lack of transparency; the nature and legal effects of the third pillar legal instruments in the AFSJ leads to inefficiency; non-involvement of the European Parliament in the decision making causes illegitimacy of the third pillar measures; the limited preliminary ruling jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over Title IV and the third pillar measures of the AFSJ and no jurisdiction to review third pillar agencies acts; the individuals are not given locus standi to challenge third pillar measures directly. The Lisbon Treaty unifies the legal, operational and judicial structure of the AFSJ. It creates a homogenous structure of legal instruments in the AFSJ, extends co-decision procedure to all legal acts, broadens the jurisdiction of the ECJ, and incorporates the Charter of fundamental rights into the EU. It will promote a more efficient, transparent, legitimate area with judicial scrutiny of measures and their accountability with fundamental rights.

EN: Unity and flexibility in the future of the European Union: The challenge of enhanced cooperation. Pp. 87-101

EN: Unity and flexibility in the future of the European Union: The challenge of enhanced cooperation. Pp. 87-101