Protocol No. 16 introduced a new advisory opinion mechanism into the legal system established by the Convention. Its purpose is to lessen the caseload of the ECtHR long-term and to establish an institutionalized dialogue between the Strasbourg Court and national courts. Under this mechanism, the highest courts of the member states may request an advisory opinion on questions of principle concerning the interpretation or application of the rights and freedoms defined in the ECHR and protocols thereto. This research focuses on the question of whether, in light of the procedural design set out in Protocol No. 16 and the relatively narrow approach adopted by the ECtHR in the opinions it has issued or declined thus far, the mechanism is capable of achieving its fundamental objectives. The research involved, in particular, a review and study of relevant literature, analysis of case law, and synthesis of the main points. The comparative section examined two mechanisms that can be regarded, in the international context, as analogous to the advisory opinions under Protocol No. 16, the preliminary ruling procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the advisory opinions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, with a view to identifying key parallels, differences, and their implications for the procedure at hand. The findings show that national courts of member states are willing to cooperate with the ECtHR and take its views and guidance into account. This has been facilitated by the optional nature of requests and the non-binding character of advisory opinions, which has helped mitigate the perception among national courts that their authority or sovereignty is being undermined. Advisory opinions undoubtedly hold considerable potential, the realization of which will depend primarily on the extent to which the ECtHR demonstrates judicial activism in addressing existing and emerging issues in the field of human rights.
|
