CONCERNING TO THE LEGAL NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE ADVISORY OPINIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

This article is devoted to clarify the significance of the advisory opinions of the European Court of Human Rights as a recently improved institution. Thus, according to Article 1 of Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the highest judicial institutions of the High Contracting Party, as defined in accordance with Art. 10 may apply to the Court for advisory opinions on matters of principle concerning the interpretation or application of the rights and freedoms defined by the Convention or its protocols. Considering the fact that only two advisory opinions on the appeal of the member states of the Council of Europe have been published on the official website of the court, this topic is a new subject for research and requires a systematic study. Allowing states to seek advisory opinions was driven by the need to ease the burden on the European Court of Human Rights. However, given the novelty of the improved institute, this statement is still controversial. The article offers its own conclusions regarding the significance of the advisory opinions in the activities of the European Court, provides a view on the legal nature of this legal institution in the internal legal order of Ukraine. This was achieved by defining the essence of such a mechanism, analyzing primary sources from the official website of the court, statistical data on the functioning of the institution, and generalizing national legislation to determine the legal nature. Thus, although Ukraine has ratified Protocol No. 16, however, the legal status of such advisory opinions has not been determined. In this connection, it is proposed to amend a number of legislative acts, in particular, to article 17 of the Law of Ukraine «On the implementation and application of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights», which should be supplemented with the rule on the legal force of the advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights. According to the general importance of such an institution, it seems reasonable to hope for a decrease in the number of decisions that would contradict the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, and, accordingly, a decrease in the grounds for filing applications.