Affiliation:
1. Russian- Armenian University
Abstract
The purpose of the article is to underline that the comprehensive implementation of the Protocol № 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms depends on the appropriate efforts of the member States. Both the parliaments and the highest courts of the member States should take certain measures to achieve the goals persuaded by the Protocol. Thus, it is important to examine the risks of the Protocol’s implementation to find out what specific activity should be performed by the member States to minimize problems and provide for maximum benefits.
In particular, advisory opinions are not biding, so the opinion of the European Court’s of Human Rights may be ignored; it can lead to delays in the proceedings before the domestic courts themselves; there is a risk that it might generate additional workload for the Court.
However, the risks can be managed and in the end the advantages of advisory opinion procedure’s application outweigh its disadvantages.
The article involves some important recommandations for domestic parliaments to establish sufficient procedural rules and judicial bodies to make requests in proper manner. It is also argued that domestic parliaments should inter alia establish effective mechanisms of applying for advisory opinion by domestic courts and requests by domestic courts and tribunals should be based on appropriate guidelines and explanations. Sited recommandations are of great importance for Post-Soviet countries to apply the Protocol more correctly and widely.
As the international experience of requesting for advisory opinion is quite poor, it makes examples of it even more significant. So, the article also introduces two sample cases of requesting for advisory opinion made by the French Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court of Armenia accordingly. Getting acquainted with the content and the purposes of this experience will maintain the level of application of advisory opinion procedure.
Publisher
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
Reference24 articles.
1. European Court of Human Rights (2019a). A request by the Constitutional Court of Armenia for an advisory opinion under Protocol No 16 has been accepted: Press Release issued by the Registrar of the Court on 11 October 2019, ECHR 343 (2019). Retrieved from: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=003-6534292-8633878&file-name=Court%20accepts%20the%20Armenian%20Constitutional%20Court [in English].
2. European Court of Human Rights (2019b). Advisory Opinion concerning the recognition in domestic law of a legal parent-child relationship between a child born through a gestational sur-rogacy arrangement abroad and the intended mother, requested by the French Court of Cassation (Request No P16-2018-001), 10 April 2019. Retrieved from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-6380464-8364383%22]} [in English].
3. European Court of Human Rights (2016). Amendments to the Rules of the Court adopted by the Plenary Court on 19 September 2016 (Rules 1, 24, 29, 34, 44 and 82, new Chapter X). Retrieved from: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Rules_amended_P16_ENG.pdf [in English].
4. Bodnar, A. (2014). Res Interpretata: Legal Effect of the European Court of Human Rights’ Judgments for Other States Than Those Which Were Party to the Proceedings. Haech, Y., Brems, E. (eds.) Human Rights and Civil Liberties in the 21st Century. Dordrecht, pp. 223–262 [in English].
5. Council of Europe (2013a). Draft Protocol No 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: the Opinion No 285 (2013) adopted by the Parliamen-tary Assembly of the Council of Europe on 28 June 2013. Retrieved from: http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-EN.asp?fileid=20015&lang=en [in English].