Abstract

The European Court of Human Rights has hitherto adopted two preliminary advisory opinions ac-cording Protocol No. 16 to the European Convention on Human rights. This article is going to look into some aspects relevant to the preliminary advisory procedure established by Protocol No. 16. Some of the procedural choices made by the Court in the two advisory opinions can, in fact, be agreed with, while some others seem to be conflicting with the objectives and principles that must characterize the preliminary advisory procedure itself. This occurred especially about the definition of the scope of the advisory opinion in relation to a previous judgment of the Court itself and about the statement of the principle according to which, in the advisory opinion, the Court’s task is not to set out in detail the basis for its reply.