Criticism of the European Court of Human Rights : Shifting the Convention System: Counter-Dynamics at the National and EU Level

The authors discuss legal nature of the
Protocol No. 16 to the European

Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which entered into force on 1 August 2018.
With the aim of improving the judicial dialogue between European Court of Human
Rights (ECtHR) and highest national courts, the Protocol No. 16 introduced the
advisory opinion procedure at the ECtHR level. A detailed analysis of the
impact of advisory opinion procedure on the judicial dialogue is included and
is further supported by the reviews of cases at the ECtHR against Slovenia,
Belgium and Italy, which illustrate how a possibility to request an advisory
opinion could have prevented finding of a human right’s violation on the
Strasbourg level and raised the effectiveness of human rights standards. The
authors believe the Protocol No. 16 has brought a lot of potential for improvement
of the judicial dialogue, which could lead to better understanding of ECHR
standards, as interpreted by the ECtHR, and therefore prevent human rights
violations already on a national level.

/pdf/judicial-dialogue-in-the-light-of-protocol-no-16-to-the-14inpf24hj.pdf

Judicial dialogue in the light of protocol no. 16 to the european convention on human rights

\n The Belgian judiciary has a deeply ingrained tradition of openness towards international and European law. This note discusses the implementation practice of the Belgian Constitutional Court with regard to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

Patricia Popelier

Papers

Belgium: Faithful, Obedient, and Just a Little Irritated