IMPLEMENTATION INTO THE POLISH LEGAL ORDER OF PROTOCOL NO. 16 TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Aleksandra Mężykowska
Abstract
Protocol No. 16 to the European Convention on Human Rights is a new legal instrument,
providing for the possibility for highest courts and tribunals of the State – Parties to the European
Convention on Human Rights to request that the European Court of Human Rights give an
advisory opinion on questions of principle relating to the interpretation or application of the
rights and freedoms defined in the Convention and Protocols thereto in a context of a case pending
before them. The subject of the present article is the identification of challenges that the national
legislator will face , if the decision to adhere to the Protocol will be taken. The implementation
of the Protocol to the domestic legal order will require consideration of certain legal issues. The
most important among them are: necessity to indicate courts and tribunals designated for the
purposes of the Protocol; clarification of procedural issues concerning the possibility to direct
requests for advisory opinion as regards civil, criminal and administrative procedures, including
indication of legal basis for requests, legal basis and scope of suspension of the pending proceedings;
scope of subjects – participants to the domestic proceedings allowed for initiating the procedure
for requests in the light of the obligation to respect the principle of fair trail; consideration
of the manner in which the Court’s opinions issued in foreign languages English or French will be
introduced into the legal order.
In the discussions on implementation of the provisions of the Protocol into the Polish legal
order one has to take into account that those provisions are of very general nature and the
advisory opinions shall not be binding. The ratification of Protocol no. 16 will undoubtedly be an
important step on the part of the Member States to achieve the aim of fostering dialog between the
Court and the domestic courts, which aims at strengthening of one of the fundamental principles
underlying the Strasbourg system of protection of human rights – subsidiarity principle.
References
A. Wiśniewski, Nowe podstawy formalnoprawne dla dialogu pomiędzy sądami krajowymi a Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka, „Gdańskie Studia Prawnicze”, tom XXXIII, 2015
A. Paprocka, M. Ziółkowski, Opinie doradcze w świetle Protokołu nr 16 do Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka, Europejski Przegląd Sądowy 2014/10
K. Dzehtsiarou and N. O’Meara , ‘Advisory Jurisdiction and the European Court of Human Rights: A Magic Bullet for Dialogue and Docket-control?’, 34 Legal Studies (2014)
M. Balcerzak, Kompetencja doradcza Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka – status quo a Protokół nr 16 do Europejskiej konwencji praw człowieka, „Polski Rocznik Praw Człowieka i Prawa Humanitarnego” 2015, nr 6
A. Paprocka, M.Ziółkowski, Advisory opinions under Protocol No. 16 to the European Convention on Human Rights, European Constitutional Law Review, Vol. 11 issue 2/2015
L. Wildhaber, A constitutional future for the European Court of Human Rights, “Human Rights Law Journal” 2002, Vol. 23
F. Vanneste, A New Inadmissibility Ground, [w:] P.Lemmens, W. Vandenhole (red.), Protocol No. 14 and the Reform of the European Court of Human Rights, Antwerpia-Oksford 2011
A. Bultrini, The Future of the European Convention on Human Rights after the Brighton Conference, IAI Working Papers 12/23 September 2012
J. Sadomski, Pytania prejudycjalne polskich sądów powszechnych, Instytut Wymiaru Sprawiedliwości 2014
P. Hofmański, E. Sadzik, K. Zgryzek, Kodeks postępowania karnego, Komentarz, Warszawa 2008, t. 1
K. Kowalik-Bańczyk, Glosa do wyroku ETPCz z 8.4.2014 r., 17120/09, Dhahbi p. Włochom, „Państwo i Prawo”, 12/2015,
A. Mężykowska, ETPCz o obowiązku uzasadniania odmowy zwrócenia się z pytaniem prejudycjalnym – glosa do wyroku z 8.4.2014 r. w sprawie Dhahbi przeciwko Włochom, „Europejski Przegląd Sądowy”, 2014, nr 9
A. Kastelik-Smaza, Konsekwencje naruszenia obowiązku skierowania pytania prejudycjalnego do ETS, „Europejski Przegląd Sądowy”, 2007, nr 2
