Abstract
The paper, apart from giving a general or overall view of the advisory question in the European Court of Human Rights, focuses on the analysis of the third request of this nature based on Protocol number 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950. In this sense, the Decision of the European Court is addressed in relation to the advisory petition made by the Slovak Supreme Court in which, for the first time, it refuses to express its opinion in the aforementioned context -frustrating not only the “dialogue” between jurisdictions that such Protocol fosters, but also implicitly creating doubts regarding the effectiveness of its new advisory function- and furthermore the adjective consequences that emerge for its author from the resolution of the Strasbourg Court.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
