Advisory Opinions under Protocol No. 16 to the ECHR. A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of the Legal Nature of the ‘Questions of Principle’
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.6000/2817-2302.2025.04.03Keywords:
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Protocol No. 16, Advisory Opinion, Questions of Principle, National Sovereignty, Judicial DiscretionAbstract
One of the most significant legal arguments against the ratification of Protocol No. 16 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is that advisory opinions issued by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) would pose a threat to national sovereignty and judicial discretion. Several counterarguments have already been examined by scholars. The counterargument that will be demonstrated here is that advisory opinions cannot pose a threat to national sovereignty or judicial discretion because they are issued on ‘questions of principle’. In other words, this means that the requesting domestic highest courts or tribunals keep sufficient margin of discretion, when it comes to the concrete case brought before them. Such hypothesis will be demonstrated from a theoretical perspective, reflecting upon the legal concept of ‘principle’; and through an empirical analysis of the advisory opinions issued so far by the ECtHR. Demonstrating the hypothesis would be relevant in order to allow the States to understand that the ratification of Protocol No. 16 would not pose any threat to the discretion of domestic Courts, neither in theory nor in practice.
References
Albanesi, Enrico. 2021. Corte Costituzionale e Parere della Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo tra Questioni di Principio e Concretezza del Giudizio Costituzionale. Torino: Giappichelli.
Albanesi, Enrico. 2022. “The European Court of Human Rights’ Advisory Opinions Legally Affect Non-Ratifying States: A Good Reason (from A Perspective of Constitutional Law) to Ratify Protocol No. 16 to the ECHR”. European Public Law 28(1): 1-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/EURO2022001
Albanesi, Enrico. 2023. “The Academic’s Perspective”. Available at https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/summary-20231013-albanesi-conference-p16-eng. Last accessed 14.04.2025.
Bartole, Sergio. 1983. “Elasticità dei principi e verifiche di fatto sulla loro applicazione”. Giurisprudenza costituzionale 28(2): 563-589.
Bates, Ed. 2010. The Evolution of the European Convention on Human Rights. From its Inception to the Creation of a Permanent Court of Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199207992.001.0001
Besson, Samantha. 2016. “Subsidiarity in International Human Rights Law – What Is Subsidiarity about Human Rights?”. American Journal of Jurisprudence 61(1): 69-107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajj/auw009
Bin, Roberto. 1988. Atti normativi e norme programmatiche. Milano: Giuffrè.
Cerrina Feroni, Ginevra. 2019. “Il disegno di legge relative alla ratifica dei Protocolli 15 e 16 recanti emendamenti alla Convenzione per la salvaguardia dei diritti dell’uomo e delle libertà fondamentali”. Federalismi.it (5): 1-11.
Cragl, Paul. 2013. “(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”. European Law Review 38(2): 229-247.
Crisafulli, Vincenzo (1952). La Costituzione e le sue disposizioni di principio. Milano: Giuffrè.
Croft Stuart, Redmond John, G. Wyn Rees and Mark Webber, eds. 1999. The Enlargement of Europe. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Dascola Maria, Fasone Cristina and Spigno Irene. 2015. “The Prospective Role of Constitutional Courts in The Advisory Opinion Mechanism Before the European Court of Human Rights: A First Comparative Assessment with The European Union and The Inter-American System”. German Law Journal 16(6): 1387-1428. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200021192
Dzehtsiarou, Kastanzin and O’Meara, Noreen. 2014. “Advisory Jurisdiction and The European Court of Human Rights: A Magic Bullet for Dialogue and Docket-control”. Legal Studies 34(3): 444-468. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lest.12025
Dworkin, Ronald. 1978. Taking Rights Seriously, 2ndedition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Gárdos-Orosz, Fruzsina. 2015. “Preliminary Reference and the Hungarian Constitutional Court: A Context of Non-Reference”. German Law Journal 16(6): 1569-1590. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200021271
Gavrysh, Khrystyna. 2022. Establishing Judicial Precedents Through Advisory Opinions of the European Court of Human Rights. The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law 2: 266-295. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/27725650-02020004
Gerards, Janneke. 2014. “Advisory Opinions, Preliminary Rulings and The New Protocol No. 16 to The European Convention of Human Rights. A Comparative and Critical Appraisal”. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 21(4): 630-651. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X1402100404
Glas, Lize. 2020. “From Interlaken to Copenhagen: What Has Become of The Proposals Aiming to Reform The Functioning of The European Court of Human Rights?” Human Rights Law Review 20(1): 121-151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngaa001
Glas, Lize and Krommendijk, Jasper. 2022. “A Strasbourg Story of Swords and Shields: National Courts’ Motives to Request an Advisory Opinion from The ECtHR under Protocol No. 16”. European Convention on Human Rights Law Review 3: 311-349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/26663236-bja10042
Harmsen, Robert. 2001. “The European Convention on Human Rights after The Enlargement”. International Journal of Human Rights 5(4): 18-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/714003732
Hioureas, Christina. 2006. “Behind the Scenes of Protocol No. 14: Politics in Reforming the European Court of Human Rights?”. Berkeley Journal of International Law 24(2): 718-757.
Laffranque, Julia. 2016. “Presentation”. P. 8-9 in Subsidiarity: a two-sided coin? edited the European Court of Human Rights. Strasbourg: European Court of Human Rights.
Lemmens, Koen. 2019. “Protocol No 16 to The ECHR: Managing Backlog through Complex Judicial Dialogue?” European Constitutional Law Review 15(4): 691-713. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019619000373
Luciani, Massimo. 2019. “Note critiche sui disegni di legge per l’autorizzazione alla ratifica dei protocolli n. 15 e n. 16 della CEDU. Available at https://www.sistemapenale.it/it/documenti/ massimo-luciani-audizione-su-autorizzazione-alla-ratifica-protocollo-15-e-protocollo-16-cedu Last accessed: 14.04.2025.
Madsen, Mikael Rask. 2018. “Rebalancing European Human Rights: Has The Brighton Declaration Engendered A New Deal on Human Rights in Europe?” Journal of International Dispute Settlement 9(2): 199-222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idx016
O’Leary, Siofra. 2022. “Advisory Opinions and Judicial Dialogue Strasbourg-Style”. Common Law Market Review. 59(SI): 87-104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2022145
O’Leary, Siofra. 2023. “Judicial Dialogue through the Advisory Opinion Mechanism under Protocol No. 16”.
Lohse, Eva Julia. 2015. “The German Constitutional Court and Preliminary References – Still a Match not Made in Heaven?”. German Law Journal 16(6): 1491-1508. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200021234
Moon, Toon and Lavrysen, Laurens. 2021. “Abstract but Concrete, or Concrete but Abstract? A Guide to the Nature of advisory Opinions under Protocol No 16 of the ECHR”. Human Rights Law Review 21: 752-785. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngaa065
Pollicino, Oreste. 2013. “The Italian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice: a Progressive Overlapping between the Supranational and the Domestic Dimension”. Pp. 101-129 in The Role of Constitutional Courts in Multilevel Governance, edited by P. Popelier, A. Mazmanyan and W. Vanderbruwaene. Antwerp: Intersentia.
Raimondi, Guido. 2014. “Corte di Strasburgo e Stati: Dialoghi Non Sempre Facili. Intervista a Cura di Diletta Tega a Guido Raimondi”. Quaderni costituzionali 34(2): 463-469.
Rodríguez-Izquierdo Serrano, Miryiam. 2015. “The Spanish Constitutional Court and Fundamental Rights Adjudication After the First Preliminary Reference”. German Law Journal 16(6): 1509-1528. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200021246
Vatsov, Mihail. 2015. “European Integration Through Preliminary Rulings? The Case of the Bulgarian Constitutional Court”. German Law Journal 16(6): 1591-1622. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200021283
Voland, Thomas and Schiebel, Britta. 2017. “Advisory Opinion of The European Court of Human Rights: Unbalancing the System of Human Rights Protection in Europe?” Human Rights Law Review 17(1): 73-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngw034
Zagrebelsky, Gustavo. 1992. Il Diritto Mite. Legge Diritti Giustizia.Torino: Einaudi.
Zampetti, Giovanni. 2018. “The Recent Challenges for The European System of Fundamental Rights: Protocol No. 16 to The ECHR and Its Role Facing Constitutional and European Level of Protection”. Available at https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/ 10419/185058/1/1040654460.pdf Last accessed 14.04.2025.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
