ADVISORY OPINIONS UNDER THE PROTOCOL 16 TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS AND PRELIMINARY DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE EUROPEAN UNION

Main Article Content

Biljana Lepotić

Abstract

Protocol No. 16 to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom prescribes that the highest courts and tribunals of the High Contracting Parties, may ask from the European Court of Human Rights for advisory opinion within the interpretation or application of the rights and the freedoms that are defned by the Convention or its protocols. Potential problems, after Protocol 16 enters into force, could occur in a situation where the Supreme Court or a court with the right to seek an adverse interference, is obliged to apply for a preliminary ruling to the EU Court of Justice in the sense of Art. 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. As Protocol 16 allows the highest courts of a Member State to apply to the Strasbourg Court for advisory deliberations on the basic consumers of the affair or the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention and its protocols, and, as, on the other hand, EU law orders the courts, for that purpose, to apply to the EU Court of Justice previous decision based on the article. 267 UEFU, the issue of the effciency of preliminary procedure and the autonomy of Union law, could be questioned.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Section
Review scientific papers

References

Arnull, A., The European Union and its Court of Justice, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2006.

Borhart, K.D., Abeceda prava Evropske unije, Kancelarija za publikacije evropske unije, Luksemburg, 2013.

Canor, I., Primus Inter Pares. ‘‘Who is the Ultimate Guardian of Fundamental Rights in Europe?”, European Law Review, 3., 2000.

Chalmers, D., Davies, G., Monti, G., “European Union Law: Cases and Materi als”, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2010.

Edward, D., “Judicial Activism – Myth or Reality?”, Legal Reasoning and Judicial Interpretation of European Law (Essays in honour of Lord Mackenzie-Stuart), (eds. Campbell and Voyatzi), Trenton Publishing, 1996.

Harmsen, R., „National Responsability for European Community Acts Under the European Convention on Human Rights: Recasting the Accession Debate”, European Public Law, 625., 2001.

Kruger H. C., Polakiewicz, J., Proposals for a Coberent Human Rights Protection System in Europe, Human rights Law Journal, 22., 2001.

Lenaerts, K., “The Unity of European Law and the Overload of the ECJ – The System of Preliminary Rulings Revisited”, The future of the European judicial system in a comparative perspective: 6th International ECLN-Colloquium/IACL round table Berlin, 2-4 November 2005.

Neill, S.P., “The European Court of Justice: A Case Study in Judicial Activism”, European Policy Forum, London 1995.

Perez, A.T., „Conflicts of the Rights in the European Union, a Theory of Supranational Adjudication, Oxford University Press ”, Oxford University Press, 2009.

Rakić, B., “O smislu „saradnje“ ili „dijaloga“ između Suda pravde EU i sudova država članica“, Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu, br. 2/2013.

Schermers, H. G., Waelbroeck, D. F., “Judicial Protection in the European Union”, Kluwer Law International, The Hague 2001.

Pravni izvori

Draft Explanatory report to the Agreement on the Accession of the European Union to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Fifth Negotiation Meeting Between the CDDH ad hoc

Negotiation Group and The European Commission on the Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights, Strasbourg, 2 April 2013.

Opinion 2/13 of the Court of Justice, 18.12.2014.

Protokol 16 uz Evropsku konvenciju za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda.

Ugovor o funkcionisanju Evropske unije.

Zakon o ratifkaciji Evropske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda Službeni list SCG – Međunarodni ugovori, br. 9/2003, 5/2005 i Službeni glasnik RS - Međunarodni ugovori, br. 12/2010.

Praksa Evropskog suda pravde

С - 46/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1993.

C-221/88 European Coal and Steel Community v Acciaierie e Ferriere Busseni SpA (in liquidation), 1988.

C-166/73 Rheinmühlen-Düsseldorf v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, 1973.

C-6/64 Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L., 1964.

C-26/62 NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration, 1962.

С-48/93 The Queen v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte: Factortame Ltd and others, 1996.

C-13/68, SpA Salgoil v Italian Ministry of Foreign Trade, 1968.

C-83/78, Pigs Marketing Board v Raymond Redmond, 1978.

C-126/80, Maria Salonia v Giorgio Poidomani and Franca Baglieri, née Giglio, 1981.

C-286/88, Falciola Angelo SpA в. Comune di Pavia, 1990.

C-51-54/71International Fruit Companу NV and others v. Produktschap voor groenten en fruit, 1971.

C-33/76 Rewe-Zentralfnanz eG et Rewe-ZentralAG v. Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland, 1976.

C-45/76, Comet BV v. Produktschap v. Siergewassen, 1976.

C-283/81, Srl CILFIT and Lanifcio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health, 1982.