Affiliation:
1. RA Court of Cassation, Yerevan, Armenia
Abstract
The article is devoted to the dialogue of higher courts based on the 16th Protocol of the European Convention. The article examines the effectiveness of dialogue structures with supranational courts, as well as the experience of the highest courts of the Republic of Armenia in obtaining an advisory opinion. The expansion of the Court's powers to issue advisory opinions will further strengthen the interaction between the Court and national authorities and thereby ensure a more effective application of the Convention in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Higher courts and tribunals may request advisory opinions from the European Court on key issues concerning the interpretation or application of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and its Protocols. The requesting court or tribunal may seek an advisory opinion only in relation to a case before it. The requesting court or tribunal must give reasons for its request and present legal and factual circumstances relevant to the case before it. Advisory opinions must be motivated. If the advisory opinion in whole or in part does not express the unanimous opinion of the judges, then any judge has the right to present his own dissenting opinion. Advisory opinions are sent to the requesting court or tribunal and to the High Contracting Party to which that court or tribunal belongs.
Publisher
Association of Judges of the Republic of Armenia
Reference15 articles.
1. Barry Friedman, ‘Dialogue and Judicial Review’ (1993) 91(4) Mich LR 577; Peter W. Hogg and Allison A.Bushell, ‘The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures (Or Perhaps the Charter of Rights Isn’t Such A Bad Thing After All)’ (1997) 35(1) Osgoode Hall LJ 75; Luc Tremblay, ‘The Legitimacy of Judicial Review: The Limits of Dialogue between Courts and Legislatures’ (2005) 3(4) IJCL 617; Peter W. Hogg, Allison A. Bushell Thornton and Wade K. Wright, ‘Charter Dialogue Revisited: Or «Much Ado About Metaphors»’ (2007) 45(1) Osgoode Hall LJ 1; Ming-Sung Kuo, ‘In the Shadow of Judicial Supremacy: Putting the Idea of Judicial Dialogue in its Place’ (2016) 29(1) Ratio Juris 83; Davies, Gregory, The legitimising role of judicial dialogue between the United Kingdom courts and the European Court of Human Rights. PhD Thesis, Cardiff University 19 December 2017.
2. M. Matusiak-Frącczak, Interpreting Law Through International Judicial Dialogue by Polish Courts, „Bratislava Law Review” 2020, vol. 4(2), s. 49.
3. M. Safjan, Europa sędziów, Europa dialogu, „Na Wokandzie” 2011, nr 7, s. 54–55.
4. Davies, Gregory, The legitimising role of judicial dialogue between the United Kingdom courts and the European Court of Human Rights. PhD Thesis, Cardiff University 19 December 2017.
5. Bjorge, Eirik, Domestic Application of the ECHR: Courts as Faithful Trustees, International Law In Domestic Legal Orders (Oxford, 2015; online edn, Oxford Academic, 19 Nov. 2015).