DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE STRASBOURG COURT AND NATIONAL COURTS (CRIMINAL LIMB)

Abstract

The article is devoted to the dialogue of higher courts based on the 16th Protocol of the European Convention. The article examines the effectiveness of dialogue structures with supranational courts, as well as the experience of the highest courts of the Republic of Armenia in obtaining an advisory opinion. The expansion of the Court's powers to issue advisory opinions will further strengthen the interaction between the Court and national authorities and thereby ensure a more effective application of the Convention in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Higher courts and tribunals may request advisory opinions from the European Court on key issues concerning the interpretation or application of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and its Protocols. The requesting court or tribunal may seek an advisory opinion only in relation to a case before it. The requesting court or tribunal must give reasons for its request and present legal and factual circumstances relevant to the case before it. Advisory opinions must be motivated. If the advisory opinion in whole or in part does not express the unanimous opinion of the judges, then any judge has the right to present his own dissenting opinion. Advisory opinions are sent to the requesting court or tribunal and to the High Contracting Party to which that court or tribunal belongs.