The dialogue between judges leading to a consensus? On a mute and a silent dialogue before ECtHR

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F61989592%3A15220%2F17%3A73586050" target="_blank" >RIV/61989592:15220/17:73586050 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

—

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

The dialogue between judges leading to a consensus? On a mute and a silent dialogue before ECtHR

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

The article discusses two specific procedural issues before the European Court of Human Rights: namely the interpretative technique of European consensus and the issues of advisory opinions which are supposed to be formulated by national highest courts of Council of Europe´s member states. Both procedural issues enhance a kind of dialogue between judges. Meanwhile the European consensus, which is discussed, formulated, established and used in the premises of the ECtHR, forms a “mute dialogue” where judges tackle societal changes supported by different European municipal legislations or international instruments. The technique of advisory opinions which is foreseen by the Additional Protocol n°16 to the European Convention on Human Rights not yet entered into force, is however described as a silent dialogue, where national courts may directly address their concerns to the Court for a sort of preliminary non-binding question. This creates a sort of dialogue with specific issues to be solved.

Název v anglickém jazyce

The dialogue between judges leading to a consensus? On a mute and a silent dialogue before ECtHR

Popis výsledku anglicky

The article discusses two specific procedural issues before the European Court of Human Rights: namely the interpretative technique of European consensus and the issues of advisory opinions which are supposed to be formulated by national highest courts of Council of Europe´s member states. Both procedural issues enhance a kind of dialogue between judges. Meanwhile the European consensus, which is discussed, formulated, established and used in the premises of the ECtHR, forms a “mute dialogue” where judges tackle societal changes supported by different European municipal legislations or international instruments. The technique of advisory opinions which is foreseen by the Additional Protocol n°16 to the European Convention on Human Rights not yet entered into force, is however described as a silent dialogue, where national courts may directly address their concerns to the Court for a sort of preliminary non-binding question. This creates a sort of dialogue with specific issues to be solved.

Druh

J_ost - Ostatní články v recenzovaných periodicích

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50501 - Law

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/GA15-03102S" target="_blank" >GA15-03102S: Charakteristika a úloha evropského konsensu při výkladu Evropské úmluvy o lidských právech</a><br>

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Rok uplatnění

2017

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

European Journal of Public Matters

ISSN

2544-3399

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

2017

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

1

Stát vydavatele periodika

PL - Polská republika

Počet stran výsledku

12

Strana od-do

63-74

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—