Advisory opinions
Advisory opinions under Protocol No. 16 of the Convention
Protocol No. 16 to the Convention
Protocol No. 16 to the Convention allows the highest courts and tribunals of a State Party to request the Court to give advisory opinions on questions of principle relating to the interpretation or application of the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention or the protocols thereto.
Protocol No. 16 came into force on 1 August 2018 in respect of the States which have signed and ratified it.
Guidelines on the implementation of the advisory-opinion procedure introduced by Protocol No. 16:
Pending requests
Ukraine
The ECHR has accepted a request for an advisory opinion submitted by Ukraine’s Supreme Court concerning a dispute between a private company and the tax authorities about the proportionality of a penalty calculated at a flat rate set by law.
The request raises issues regarding, first, whether the domestic courts may impose on taxpayers more lenient sanctions even if they are not provided for by law and, second, what criteria should be taken into account in examining the proportionality of a penalty.
Slovenia
The ECHR has accepted a request from Slovenia’s Supreme Court for an advisory opinion concerning landowners’ property rights in relation to the construction of national roads.
The Supreme Court has asked the Court to provide guidance on whether allowing the issuance of a building permit and the construction of a motorway without first expropriating the affected land constitutes an unjustified interference with the landowners’ property rights, as protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 33 of the Constitution of Slovenia.
Luxembourg
The ECHR has accepted a request for an advisory opinion submitted by the Constitutional Court of Luxembourg Court.
The request concerns the compatibility with the provisions of the Convention, in particular Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), of the obligation for lawyers facing disciplinary proceedings to appear in person before a disciplinary tribunal and their impossibility of applying for a fresh hearing in the event of an in absentia decision against them. It will be examined by the Grand Chamber, comprising 17 judges, constituted in accordance with Rule 24 § 2 (g) of the Rules of Court. This is the first request for an advisory opinion submitted by one of the highest courts in Luxembourg.
Examination completed
Advisory opinions delivered
Ukraine
On 5 March 2026 the ECHR delivered its advisory opinion in reply to a request submitted by the Supreme Court of Ukraine.
The request concerned a dispute pending before Ukraine’s Supreme Court between a monastery of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and a former nun over her right to live in a convent owned by the monastery. She left the convent in 2017 in a context of conflict within the religious community.
Belgium
On 14 December 2023 the ECHR delivered its advisory opinion in reply to a request submitted by the Conseil d’État of Belgium.
The request was submitted in the context of an application lodged by a security guard before the administrative judicial division of the Belgian Conseil d’État, seeking the annulment of a decision by the Ministry of the Interior to withdraw an identity card entitling him to work as a security or surveillance guard, on the grounds that he was in contact with individuals associated with the “scientific” strand of Salafism.
Finland
On 13 April 2023 the ECHR delivered its advisory opinion in reply to a request submitted by the Supreme Court of Finland.
The request concerned the issues that have arisen out of proceedings for the adoption of an adult.
France
On 13 July 2022 the ECHR delivered its advisory opinion in reply to a request submitted by the French Conseil d’État.
The request concerned the entitlement of landowners’ associations to withdraw their land from the territory of an officially approved hunting association (ACCA).
Armenia
Lithuania
Armenia
France
The Court held that States are not obliged to register the details of the birth certificate of a child born through gestational surrogacy abroad in order to establish the legal parent-child relationship with the intended mother, as adoption may serve as a means of recognising that relationship.
Requests for advisory opinion rejected
Romania
On 16 December 2024 the Court decided to refuse the request for an advisory opinion submitted by the High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania.
The High Court requested that the ECHR give an advisory opinion on two questions concerning (1) the applicability of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and (2) the level of precision required of the domestic law which had served as the legal basis for the dismissal. The Court decided not to accept the request, considering that it did not concern a question of principle, within the meaning of Article 1 § 1 of Protocol No. 16, which warranted examination by the Grand Chamber. Presenting an overview of its relevant caselaw, the Court showed that the requesting court already had guidance on Convention issues when determining the case before it. It thus saw no reason to elaborate further on the existing principles.
Romania
On 28 June 2024 the Court decided to refuse the request for an advisory opinion submitted by the High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania.
The High Court had requested the ECHR to give an opinion on two questions concerning the interpretation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention. The Court decided not to accept the request, considering that it did not concern a question of principle, within the meaning of Article 1 § 1 of Protocol No. 16, warranting examination by the Court’s Grand Chamber. The Court’s case-law was well developed with regard to the questions asked, and several aspects of that case-law were judiciously cited by the requesting court in its decision to refer the matter to the Court.
Estonia
On 19 February 2024, the Court has decided to reject the request for an advisory opinion submitted by a panel of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Estonia.
The ECHR ruled that the request did not raise a “question of principle” as required by Protocol No. 16, i.e., a novel and/or complex question, since the particular issue was the subject of well-established case-law. The discontinuance of criminal proceedings by a public prosecutor amounted to neither a conviction nor an acquittal, and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 was therefore not applicable in such a situation.
Slovakia
The Court has decided on 14 December 2020 to reject the request for an advisory opinion submitted by the Slovak Supreme Court concerning the independence of the current mechanism for assessing complaints against the police.
The ECHR considered that the points raised did not concern an issue for which the Slovak Supreme Court required guidance so that it could ensure respect for Convention rights in hearing and determining the case in question.
Useful Links
- Chart of signatures and ratifications of Protocol No. 16
- European Convention on Human Rights and Protocols
- Rules of Court
- Questions and answers
- Seminar to mark the fifth anniversary of the coming into force of Protocol No. 16 (13/10/2023)
- Press release concerning updated version of the Guidelines (10/2023)
- Press release issued on the occasion of the entry into force of Protocol No. 16 (01/08/2018)
- Amendments to the Rules of the Court adopted by the plenary Court (19/06/2016)
- Opinion of the Court on Draft Protocol No. 16 (06/05/2013)
- More information (Council of Europe Treaty Office)
Advisory opinions under Article 47 of the Convention
Advisory opinions on certain legal questions concerning the lists of candidates submitted with a view to the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights
- Advisory opinion (no. 2) (22/01/2010)
- Advisory opinion (no. 1) (12/02/2008)
Decision on the competence of the Court to give an advisory opinion
- Decision of the Court (02/06/2004)
Advisory opinions under the Oviedo Convention
The ECHR decided on 15 September 2021 not to accept the request for an advisory opinion submitted by the Council of Europe’s Committee on Bioethics (DH-BIO) under Article 29 of the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, also known as “Oviedo Convention”. The DH-BIO had asked the Court to provide an advisory opinion on two questions regarding the protection of the human rights and dignity of persons with mental disorders in the face of involuntary placement and/or treatment.