ADVISORY OPINION AND PRELIMINARY RULING PROCEDURE – A COMPARATIVE AND CONTEXTUAL NOTE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25234/pv/10767Keywords:
Protokol br. 16, savjetodavno mišljenje, prethodni postupak, odnos Europske konvencije o zaštiti ljudskih prava i prava Europske unijeAbstract
The apropos of this article is Additional Protocol No. 16 complementing to the European Convention on Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms that recently came into force. This paper presents the main common and differing elements of two non-contentious procedures before supranational courts. The advisory opinion procedure of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the preliminary ruling procedure marked by unprecedented success before the Court of Justice of the European Union, -as at least prima facie- similar types of proceedings. The paper also analyses cross-cutting issues arising from the application of both procedures in the same case arising before designated national court or tribunal. Although the purpose of the advisory opinion is to achieve and maintain efficiency bearing in mind that the ECtHR is victim of its own success the paper outlines some of serious doubts and assumptions whether in current format and in foreseeable future this purpose will be achieved. Furthermore, the paper also takes a closer look at the procedural aspects of the first advisory opinion delivered by ECtHR given its importance as we can draw at least some conclusions on the functioning of this type of procedure. Lastly, the paper -in comparative spirit- also refers to the relationship of the ECHR and the European Union Law as the two main trustees within the European multilevel system of rights protection.
References
Blutman, L., Az Európai Unió joga a gyakorlatban, HVG ORAC Budapest, 2014.
Karoliny, E.; Komanovics, A.; Mohay, Á.; Pánovics, A.; Szalayné Sándor, E., Az Európai Unió joga, Dialóg Campus, Budapest-Pécs, 2015.
Mohay, Á., A nemzetközi jog érvényesülése az uniós jogban. PTE ÁJK Európa Központ/Publikon, Pécs, 2019.
Mohay, Á., Az előzetes döntéshozatali eljárás. In: Mohay, Á.; Szalayné Sándor, E. (ed.), Az Európai Unió joga: C/2. témakör: Az Európai Unió joga. Dialóg Campus, Budapest-Pécs 2015.
Shaw, M. N., International Law, Sixth edition, Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Eckes, Ch., The Court of Justice’s Participation in the Judicial Discourse: Theory and Practice In: M. Cremona & A. Thies (ed.), The European Court of Justice and External Relations – Constitutional Challenges, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2014.
Fabbrini F.; Larik J., The Past, Present and Future of the Relations between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights in: Yearbook of European Law, Vol. 35, No. 1, 2016, pp. 145–179. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/yew002
Gerards J., Advisory Opinions, preliminary rulings and the new protocol No.16 to the European Convention on Human Rights: A comparative and critical Appraisal, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative law, Vol. 21, No. 4, 2014, pp. 630–651.
Helfer R. L., Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: Embeddedness as a Deep Structural Principle of the European Human Rights Regime, The European Journal of International Law, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2008, p.125.
Lemmens, K., Protocol No. 16 to the ECHR: Managing Backlog trough Complex Judicial Dialogue? European Constitutional Law Review, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2019, pp. 691 – 713. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019619000373
Advisory opinion concerning the recognition in domestic law of a legal parent-child relationship between a child born through a gestational surrogacy arrangement abroad and the intended mother, Request no. P16-2018-001Para.
Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom 55721/07 ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0707 JUD005572107.
Avotiņš v. Latvia (Application no. 17502/07) ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0523JUD 001750207.
Banković and Others v. Belgium and Others 52207/99 ECLI:CE:ECHR:2001:1212 DEC005220799.
Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland, Application No.: 45036/98, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:0630JUD004503698.
Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret AS v Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications and others, C-84/95, ECLI:EU:C:1996:312.
Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities C-54/96 ECLI:EU:C:1997:413.
Dumitru-Tudor Dorobantu C128/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:857.
Erich Stauder v City of Ulm C-29-69, ECLI:EU:C:1969:57.
Markcx v. Belgium, Application no. 6833/74 ECLI:CE:ECHR:1979:0613JUD 000683374.
Mennesson v. France, Application No.:65192/11, ECLI:CE:ECHR: 2014: 0626JUD 006519211.
Opinion 2/13 of the Court ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454.
Protocol No. 16 to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Council of Europe Treaty Series No. 214 (CETS No.214).
Roland Rutili v Ministre de l’intérieur Case 36-75. ECLI:EU:C:1975:137.
Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice OJ L 265/1.
Rules of the Court, https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Rules-Court-ENG.pdf. Accessed 8 April 2020.
Soering v United Kingdom, Application no. 14038/88 ECLI:CE:ECHR:1989: 0707JUD001403888.
Treaty on European Union OJ 2012 C 326/1.
Tyrer v. United Kingdom 5856/72 ECLI:CE:ECHR:1978:0425JUD000585672.
Vivien Prais v Council of the European Communities, Opinion of Mr Advocate General Warner 1976. C 130-75, ECLI:ECLI:EU:C:1976:124.
Brighton Declaration https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2012-Brighton-FinalDeclaration-ENG.pdf. Accessed 8 April 2020.
Buyse, A., Analysis: The Strasbourg Court’s First Advisory Opinion under Protocol 16 http://echrblog.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-european-courts-first-advisory.html. Accessed 8 April 2020.
Callewaert, J., Protocol 16 and the Autonomy of EU law: who is threatening whom? https://europeanlawblog.eu/2014/10/03/protocol-16-and-the-autonomy-of-eu-law-who-is-threatening-whom/. Accessed 8 April 2020.
Chart of signatures and ratifications of Treaty 214, Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Status as of 14/04/2020 https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/214/signatures?p-auth=oN1OZ7Um. Accessed 8 April 2020.
ECHR – Analysis of Statistics 2019 https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats-analysis-2019-ENG.pdf. Accessed 8 April 2020.
Guidelines on the implementation of the advisory-opinion procedure introduced by Protocol No. 16 to the Convention (as approved by the Plenary Court on 18 September 2017) https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guidelines-P16-ENG.pdf. Accessed 8 April 2020.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention-ENG.pdf. Accessed 8 April 2020.
Izmir Declaration: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2011-Izmir-FinalDeclaration-ENG.pdf. Accessed 8 April 2020.
Mohay Á., Plot twist? Case C-128/18 Dorobantu: detention conditions and the applicability of the ECHR in the EU legal order, http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/search?q=plot+twist. Accessed 08 April 2020.
O’Leary, S.; Eicke, T., Some Reflections on Protocol No.16. https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Speech-20190125-O-Leary-Eicke-JY-ENG.pdf. Accessed 8 April 2020.
Paulus, A., Opening of the Judicial Year Seminar Judgments and Separate Opinions: Complementarity and Tensions https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Speech-20190125-Paulus-JY-ENG.pdf. Accessed 8 April 2020.
Polakiewicz, J., Europe’s multi-layered human rights protection system: challenges, opportunities and risks, Lecture at Waseda University Tokyo, 14 March 2016, https://www.coe.int/en/web/dlapil/speeches-of-the-director/-/asset-publisher/ja71RsfCQTP7/content/europe-s-multi-layered-human-rights-protection-system-challenges-opportunities-and-risks?inheritRedirect=false#-ftn1. Accessed 8 April 2020.
Recommendations to national courts and tribunals, in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings 2016/C 439/01. Accessed 14 April 2020.
Report of the Group of Wise Persons to the Committee of Ministers https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result-details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805d7893. Accessed 13 April 2020.
Spielmann, D., The Judicial Dialogue between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights Or how to remain good neighbors after the Opinion 2/13. http://www.fp7-frame.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ECHRCJUEdialogBRUSSELS.final-pdf. Accessed 8 April 2020.
Statistics: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats-violation-2019-ENG.pdf. Accessed 13 April 2020.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Marija Daka
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright on the papers published in the Journal, but grant the right of first publication to the Journal. Papers accepted for publication or already published in Pravni vjesnik of the Faculty of Law in Osijek may be published by the author(s) in other publications only with proper notice of its previous publication in Pravni vjesnik.
