Zavhorodnii V. Legal interpretative acts of the European court of human rights

DOI: 10.33098/2078-6670.2021.12.24.77-83

Purpose.The purpose of the article is to define and implement the characteristics of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, which have the legal properties of classical interpretative legal acts. Methodology. The theoretical tools of the study were: universal epistemological principles of cognition, complex, dialectical, axiological approaches, general scientific and special scientific methods of cognition. In particular, the following methods of scientific research were used during the research: analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, structural, systemic, technical-dogmatic. Results. As a result of the study it was established that the legal acts of the European Court of Human Rights, which have the legal nature of interpretative-legal are: 1) advisory opinions of the Strasbourg Court, adopted by the European Court of Human Rights in connection with requests from the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe or the higher courts of the States Parties to the Convention; 2) judgments of the Strasbourg Court, containing explanations of legal positions and / or individual prescriptions previously formulated by the Court of Europe, contained in the decisions adopted by the Strasbourg Court on the merits. Scientific novelty. For the first time, the paper substantiates the legal nature of those legal acts of the Court of the Council of Europe that have exclusively interpretive properties. Practical significance. The results of the study can be used in law enforcement activities of entities authorized to implement the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the national legal order of Ukraine.

Key words: legal acts, legal interpretative acts, decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, advisory opinions of the Strasbourg Court, judgments of the Court of the Council of Europe

References

1. Protocol No. 16 to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 02.10.2013. Strasbourg: ratified by application of the Law of Ukraine № 2156-VIII (2017, October 5). Retrived from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/994_002-13 (in English)
2. Advisory opinion concerning the recognition in domestic law of a legal parent-child relationship between a child born through a gestational surrogacy arrangement abroad and the intended mother Requested by the French Court of Cassation (Request no. P16-2018-001). Grand chamber. 10 April 2019. Retrived from: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=003-6380464-8364383 (in English)
3. Request to the European Court of Human Rights for advisory opinion under article 1 of the Protocol 16 to the European Convention. Retrived from: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/P16_Request_Advisory_opinion_Constitutional_Court_Armenia_ENG.pdf (in English)
4. Síofra O’Leary, Tim Eicke Some reflections on Protocol No. 16. (Speech by Judges elected in respect of Ireland and the United Kingdom at the opening of the judicial year on 25 January 2019). Retrived from: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Speech_20190125_O_Leary_Eicke_J.pdf (in English)
5. Lepish, N. (2013). Struktura aktiv tlumachennia norm prava [The structure of interpretation acts of law]. Public law, 2 (10), pp. 307-313. (in Ukrainian)
6. Hofer, R., Netesaym, N. (2010). Napysannia sudovykh rishen [Writing court decisions: a guide for judges]. Kyiv: Yurinkom Inter, 80 p. (in Ukrainian)
7. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Retrived from: https://rm.coe.int/1680063765 (in English)
8. Rules of European Court of Human Rights (incorporates amendments made by the Plenary Court on 9 Sept. 2019). Retrived from: https://www.echr.coe.int/ Documents/ Rules_Court_ENG.pdf (in English)
9. European Court of Human Rights judgment in case of «Ringeisen v. Austria» (interpretation) (Application n 2614/65). Strasbourg. 23 June 1973. Retrived from: echr.pravo.unizg.hr (in English)