Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:25:31.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Considerations on Protocol N°16: Can the New Advisory Competence of the European Court of Human Rights Breathe New Life into the European Convention on Human Rights?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Christos Giannopoulos

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Protocol n°16 expands the advisory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter ECtHR) by introducing a mechanism of litigation-related opinions (“avis contentieux”). It affords the highest national courts and tribunals the ability to ask the ECtHR for an advisory opinion on questions of principle related to the interpretation and application of the rights and freedoms defined in the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter Convention) and the Protocols thereto.

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , May 2015 , pp. 337 - 350
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 222, as amended, Protocol 14, Art. 1, May 13, 2004, C.E.T.S. No. 194, available at http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/214.htm [hereinafter Protocol No. 16].Google Scholar

2 In the present Article, the term of national judges is used in a narrow sense and refers mostly to the highest national courts and tribunals.Google Scholar

3 Protocol No. 16, supra note 1, Art. 10.Google Scholar

4 See Conseil de l'Europe, 979bis Réunion, 15 novembre 2006, Rapport du Groupe des Sages au Comité des Ministres, Document CM(2006)203, pt. 76–86, 135, 21–22, 36, available at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM(2006)203&Language=lanFrench&Ver=original&Site=CM&BackColorlnte rnet=DBDCF2&BackColorlntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864.Google Scholar

5 See Council of Europe, Izmir Declaration adopted on 27 April 2011 at the High Level Conference on the future of the European Court of Human Rights, pt. I.2.b, Apr. 27, 2011, available at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1781937.Google Scholar

6 See Council of Europe, Guaranteeing the Long-Term Effectiveness of the Control System of the European Convention on Human Rights, Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), 119th Session or the Committee of Ministers, May 12, 2009, CM(2009)51 final pt. 42–44, at 12–13, available at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1441881&Site=CM.Google Scholar

7 Protocol No. 16, supra note 1, Art. 11.Google Scholar

8 European Court of Human Rights, Opinion of the Court on the Draft Protocol No. 16 to the Convention extending its competence to give advisory opinions on the interpretation of the Convention, pt. 6, at 2 (adopted by the Plenary Court on May 6, 2013), http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2013_Protocol_16_Court_Opinion_ENG.pdf.Google Scholar

9 Council of Europe, Explanatory report to Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, pt. 9, at 3, http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Protocol_16_explanatory_report_ENG.pdf.Google Scholar

10 European Court of Human Rights, Document de réflexion sur la proposition d'élargissement de la competence consultative de la Cour, pt. 27–30, at 6–7, http://www.coe.int/t/dgi/brighton-conference/documents/Court-Advisory-opinions_fr.pdf]; See also European Court of Human Rights, the Opinion of the Court on Draft Protocol N°16 to the Convention (extending its competence to give advisory opinions on the interpretation of the Convention) (adopted by the Plenary Court on May 6, 2013).Google Scholar

11 Document de réflexion, supra note 10, point 27–31, at 6–8.Google Scholar

12 Ireland v. United-Kingdom, App. No. 5310/71 18 Eur. Ct. H.R., 154 (1978); Karner v. Austria, App. No. 40015/98, Eur. Ct. H.R., 26 (2003).Google Scholar

12 After the case Hirst v. United Kingdom (n°2), the European Court of Human Rights [hereinafter ECtHR] has Issued similar decisions concerning Italy and Russia based on the existence of the similar legislation in these two States, which was also the subject of litigation. In this way, It Is likely that a national judge could ask the Court for the conformity of his own country's system in relation to the standards issued by the ECtHR. See, e.g., Hirst v. United Kingdom (n°2), App. No. 74025/01 Eur. Ct. H.R. (2005); Scoppola v. Italy (n°3), App. No. 126/05 Eur. Ct. H.R. (2012); Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia, App. Nos. 11157/04 & 15162/05. Eur. Ct. H.R. (2013).Google Scholar

14 Protocol No. 16, supra note 1, Art. 3.Google Scholar

15 Explanatory report of the Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending the control system of the Convention, Council of Europe, Treaty Office, point 80, p. 12, availiable at http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?CL=ENGÑ=194]Google Scholar

16 Protocol No. 16, supra note 1, Art. 1, para. 3.Google Scholar

17 Id. at Art. 2, para. 1. It is interesting to note also that in the contentious cases when the panel of five judges examines the request by a party to refer a case to the Grand Chamber, the panel is not obliged to give reasons for a refusal of the request. See European Court of Human Rights, Rules of Court, Art. 73, para. 2 (amended July 1, 2014).Google Scholar

18 Explanatory Report, supra note 9, point 11, at 3.Google Scholar

19 Id. Google Scholar

20 Id. Google Scholar

21 Id. Google Scholar

22 Explanatory Report, supra note 9, point 11–12, at 3. The Protocol gives the ability to the national judges to express their own points of view on the subject. This is important considering the fact that the Court often has been criticized for ignoring the national particularities and practices. In this way, the ECtHR can have direct access to the national judges’ opinions and compare their points of view with its own.Google Scholar

23 Explanatory Report, supra note 9, point 25, at 5.Google Scholar

24 See also Implementation of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: A Shared Judicial Responsibility? in Dialogue between Judges 2014, Editions of the Council of Europe, http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Dialogue_2014_ENG.pdf.Google Scholar

25 See the Opinion of the Court on Draft Protocol No. 16, supra note 8, pt. 12, at 2.Google Scholar

26 Explanatory Report, supra note 9, point 27, at 6.Google Scholar

27 The Convention, though incorporated in the national legal orders of the member States, still has a different status in the national level. Only a minority of States recognizes a constitutional status in the internal hierarchy (Austria, Bosnia-Hercegovina). The Convention only has a status above ordinary statute in most states.Google Scholar

28 Explanatory Report, supra note 9, point 26, at 5.Google Scholar

29 See Sicilianos Linos-Alexander, The Enlargement of the Advisory Function of the European Court of Human Rights: Comments on Protocol No. 16, 97 Revue Trimestrielle des Droits de l'Homme 14 (2014).Google Scholar

30 For a detailed analysis in the role of the advisory opinions in the case law of the International Court of Justice, see generally Auaghoub, Mahasen Mohammad, The Advisory Function of the International Court of Justice 1945-2005 (2006); see also Marie-Clotilde Runavot, la compétence consultative des juridictions internationales. Reflet des vicissitudes de la fonction judiciaire internationale, in Bibliothèque de droit international et communautaire (2010).Google Scholar

31 Jean-Paul Jacqué, Preliminary References to the European Court of Human Rights, in How can we ensure greater involvement of national courts in the Convention system? Dialogue between judges 2012, Conseil de l'Europe, 18–24.Google Scholar

32 Françoise Benoit-Rohmer, Les Perspectives de Réformes à Long Terme de la Cour Européenne des Droits de l'Homme: “Certiorari” Versus Renvoi Préjudiciel, 14 Revue Universelle des Droits de l'Homme 313-19 (2002).Google Scholar

33 Gragl, Paul, (Judicial) Love is Not a One-Way Street: The EU Preliminary Reference Procedure as a Model for ECtHR Advisory Opinions under Draft Protocol No. 16, 38 Eur. L. Rev., 229, 230 (2013).Google Scholar

34 TFEU Art. 267.Google Scholar

35 The European Court of Justice has further developed the exceptions of the obligation of national judges to ask for its preliminary ruling under TFEU art. 267, paragraph 3, in the case Cilfit et Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v. Minister of Health, CJEU Case C-283/81, 1982 E.C.R. 3415, paras. 9, 11, 14.Google Scholar

36 Simon, Denys, Le Système Juridique Communautaire 694 (3d ed. 2001). However, the author recognizes that this separation is more theoretical and that in practice the interpretation and the application do not have many differences. According to Simon, “the guiding line between interpretation and enforcement duties (application) can vary depending on the accuracy of the question made by the national court, the complexity of the legal and factual context of the question and the type of the European legislation interpreted by the Court of Justice.” (Author's translation.)Google Scholar

37 For a detailed analysis on this point, see Barav, Ami, Déformations Préjudicielles, in Mélanges en Hommage à Georges Vandersanden: Promenades au Sein du Droit Européen 21–88 (Georges Vandersanden et al. eds., 2008); see also Barav, Ami, Déviation Préjudicielle, in Les Dynamiques du Droit Européen en Début de Siècle, Etudes en l'Honneur de Jean Claude Gautron 227-47 (Pedone ed., 2004).Google Scholar

38 See ECHR, Art. 35, para. 1(a) (regarding the admissibility criteria of an individual application, providing that “the Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted”).Google Scholar

39 The Convention guarantees rights by establishing a centralized system of collective protection of Human Rights. According to articles 32 and 19 of the Convention, the ECtHR is the authentic interpreter of the text and its Protocols in a way that it has the original capacity of interpreting the Convention.Google Scholar

40 Due to the role of the ECtHR as the authentic interpreter (“interprète authentique”) of the ECtHR, its interpretations are incorporated in the Conventions’ rights and compose standards for the national judges. However, the national judges who are the common judges of the ECHR can limit this power of the ECtHR. For an example of the use of this capacity by the British judges, see Lambrecht, Sarah, Bringing Rights More Home; Can A Home-Grown UK Bill of Rights Lessen the Influence of the European Court of Human Rights?, 15 German L. J. 407 (2014).Google Scholar

41 Jacqué, supra note 31, at 20.Google Scholar

42 Parliamentary Assembly Opinion 285 (2013), Draft Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, part 2, http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewPDF.asp?FilelD=2D015&Language=EN.Google Scholar

43 Jacqué, supra note 31, at 20.Google Scholar

44 Explanatory Report, supra note 9, at 6.Google Scholar

45 The advisory competence of the ECtHR was introduced in the Convention by the adoption of the Second Protocol. It opened for signature on May 6, 1963 and entered into force on September 21, 1970.Google Scholar

46 Article 47, paragraph 1, provides, “The Court may, at the request of the Committee of Ministers, give advisory opinions on legal questions concerning the interpretation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto.”Google Scholar

47 Article 47, paragraph 2, provides,Google Scholar

** “Such opinions shall not deal with any question relating to the content or scope of the rights or freedoms defined in Section I of the Convention and the Protocols thereto, or with any other question which the Court or the Committee of Ministers might have to consider in consequence of any such proceedings as could be instituted in accordance with the Convention.”Google Scholar

48 Advisory Opinion Concerning the Lists of Candidates Submitted with a View to the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights, Eur. Ct. H.R. (Feb. 12, 2008); Advisory Opinion on Certain Legal Questions Concerning the Lists of Candidates Submitted with a View to the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights (No. 2), Eur. Ct. H.R. (Jan. 22, 2010).Google Scholar

49 Decision on the Competence of the Court to Give an Advisory Opinion, European Court of Human Rights, June 2, 2004, pt. 33.Google Scholar

50 See Advisory Opinion on Certain Legal Questions, supra note 48, at 29.Google Scholar

51 The question was about if the proceedings before the Commission of the CEI could be considered as a proceeding in the spirit of Article 35, section 2(b) of the European Convention on Human Rights.Google Scholar

52 See Sicilianos, supra note 30, at 17.Google Scholar

53 Jean-Paul Costa and Patrick Titiun, Les Avis Consultatifs Devant la Cour Européenne des Droits de l'Homme, in L'homme dans la Société Internationale: Mélanges en Hommage au Professeur Paul Tavernier 614 (Bruylant ed., 2014).Google Scholar

54 Runavot, Marie-Clotilde, La Compétence Consultative des Juridictions Internationales: Reflet des Vicissitudes de la Fonction Judiciaire Internationale 125, 145 (2010).Google Scholar

54 Explanatory Report, supra note 9, at 4.Google Scholar

55 See Protocol No. 16, supra note 1, at 4.Google Scholar

56 For a full analysis on the ECtHR's priority policy, see European Court of Human Rights, The Court's Priority Policy, http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Priority_policy_ENG.pdf.Google Scholar

57 See supra, Part B.Google Scholar

58 See supra, Part B.Google Scholar

59 See supra, Part B.Google Scholar

60 See supra, Part B.Google Scholar

61 Jacqué, supra note 31, at 17.Google Scholar