Advisory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights
Abstract
The article analyzes the advisory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. Scientific-professional interpretation of the norms of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Articles 47-49), Protocol № 16 thereto, Chapters IX, X of Rules of the Court allowed to classify the types of advisory jurisdiction according to the subject of the right to request:
1) advisory opinions requested by the Committee of Ministers the Court shall apply, in addition to the provisions of Articles 47,48 and 49 of the Convention;
2) advisory opinions requested by courts or tribunals designated by Contracting Parties pursuant to Article 10 of Protocol No. 16 to the Convention. In accordance with Article 1 of Protocol No. 16 to the Convention, a court or tribunal of contracting party to that Protocol may request the Court to give an advisory opinion on questions of principle relating to the interpretation or application of the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto.
It has been established that the advisory jurisdiction of the ECHR does not intersect with the contentious jurisdiction of Court. Therefore, the first request from the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe was rejected. The Court held that since the request concerned the criterion of admissibility of applications, ie if, under the mechanism established by the Commonwealth of Independent States Convention, the case had already been accepted, such an application fell within the limitation of advisory jurisdiction under Article 47 (2) of the Convention. The following two advisory opinions issued by the ECHR under Article 47 of the Convention concerned the procedure for the election of judges of the Court and have precedent sense.
It is substantiated that the ECtHR performs a constitutional function, within which it sets standards in the field of protection of human rights and freedoms by providing advisory opinions. It is these documents that are being created in order for the contracting parties to make qualitative changes in the judicial systems at the national level, which, in turn, would help protect human rights and freedoms by moving from "ex post" to "ex ante" in addressing a number of issues concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Convention at the contracting party's level. The promotion of a constructive dialogue between the European Court of Human Rights and national courts or tribunals will serve for the subsequent implementation of the Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms at national level, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.
References
2. Greer S., Wildhaber L. Revisiting the Debate about "constitutionalising" the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review. 2012. Vol. 12. № 4. P. 655-687.
3. Ахтирська Н.М. Консультативний висновок ЄСПЛ як засіб формування єдності судової практики. Судова апеляція. 2019. № 2(55). С. 77-83.
4. Bates E. The Evolution of the European Convention on Human Rights: From Its Inception to the Creation of a Permanent Court of Human Rights. Oxford : OUP, 2010. 610 р.
5. Entin M, Mahoney P., Wildhaber L. Statement on Case-Overload at the European Court of Human Rights. European Law Institute. 27 March 2012. 50 p. URL : http:// https://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/p_eli/Publications/S-1-2012_Statement_on_ Case_Overload_at_the_European_Court_of_ Human_Rights.pdf.
6. De Londras F. Dual Functionality and the Persistent Frailty of the European Court of Human Rights. European Human Rights Law Review. 2013. P. 13-16.
7. Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou, Noreen O'Meara Advisory jurisdiction and the European Court of Human Rights: a magic bullet for dialogue and docket-control? Legal Studies. 2014.Vol. 34. № 3. Р. 444-468.
8. Maria Dicosola, Cristina Fasone and Irene Spigno. 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. 2015. Vol. 16. № 6. Р. 1387-1428.
9. Зенин А.А. Консультативные заключения Европейского Суда по правам человека и Протокол № 16 к Конвенции (к истории вопроса). Российский ежегодник Европейской конвенции по правам человека. 2015. № 1. С. 398-415.
10. ECHR. Decision on the competence of the Court to give an advisory opinion of 2 June 2004. URL : http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/ eng?i=003-1339293-1397515.
11. Рішення ЄСПЛ у справі «К.В. проти Фінляндії» від 9 жовтня 1991 р., скарга № 17230/90; рішення ЄК у справі «Кере-седа Мартін проти Іспанії» від 12 жовтня 1992 р., скарга № 16358/90; рішення ЄК у справі «Калсеррада Форніелес та Кабеза Мато проти Іспанії» від 6 липня 1992 р., скарга № 17512/90; рішення ЄК у справі «Паугер проти Австрії» від 9 січня 1995 р., скарга № 24872/94.
12. ECHR. Advisory opinionon certain legal questions concerning the lists of candidates submitted with a view to the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights of 12 February 2008. URL : http://hudoc.echr. coe.int/eng?i=003-2268009-2419060.
13. Питання добору кандидатур для обрання на посаду судді Європейського суду з прав людини від України : Указ Президента України від 14 вересня
2007 р. № 869/2007. URL : https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/869/2007.
14. ECHR. 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 (№ 2) of 22 January 2010. URL : http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng? 1=003-3004688-3312583.
15. Протокол № 16 до Конвенції про захист прав людини і основоположних свобод набрав чинності 01.01.2018.
16. Щодо набрання чинності міжнародним договором України : Лист МЗС України від 07.08.2018 № 72/14-612/1-2117. URL : https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/rada/show/v2117321-18.
17. Про ратифікацію Протоколів № 15 та № 16 до Конвенції про захист прав людини і основоположних свобод : Закон України від 05.10.2017. Відомості Верховної Ради (ВВР). 2017. № 45. Ст. 401. URL : https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/ show/2156-19.
18. 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). URL : https://www.echr.coe.int/ Documents/Guidelines_P16_ENG.pdf.
19. ECHR. 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 № P16-2018-001 of 10.04.2019. URL : http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng/?i=003-6380464-8364383.
20. ECHR. Court (Fifth Section). Cаse of Mennesson v. France (№ 65192/11). Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) of 26.06.2014. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng/?i=001-150984; ECHR. Court (Fifth Section). Affaire Foulon et Bouvet c. France (№№ 9063/14, 10410/14). Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) of 21.07.2016. URL : http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng/?i=001-164968.
21. ECHR. Request for an advisory opinion from the Constitutional Court of Armenia. URL: echr.coe.int/Documents/P16_Request_ Advisory_opinion_Constitutional_Court_ Armenia_ENG.pdf.
22. ECHR. 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 of 11.10.2019. URL : http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=003-6534292-8633878.
