Abstract

In constitutional adjudication, a well-known distinction exists between abstract and concrete review. Under abstract review, a court evaluates a rights interference detached from any particular application to the facts of a case. Under concrete review, the review arises as an element of adjudication of specific facts. In this contribution, we explain theoretically how this distinction plays both at the macro level of a review system and the micro level of specific cases. These concepts are then used to explore and understand the advisory procedure recently introduced by Protocol No 16 to the European Convention on Human Rights. We argue that this mechanism theoretically provides for a type of review that is more abstract than the review exercised under the European Court of Human Rights’ contentious jurisdiction, yet still allows for important elements of concreteness to enter the analysis. This is confirmed by Advisory Opinions Nos 1 and 2.

中文翻译：

---

抽象但具体，还是具体但抽象？ECHR 第 16 号议定书咨询意见的性质指南

摘要

在宪法审判中，抽象审查和具体审查之间存在着众所周知的区别。在抽象审查下，法院评估与案件事实的任何特定应用无关的权利干涉。在具体审查中，审查是作为对具体事实进行裁决的一个要素。在这篇文章中，我们从理论上解释了这种区别如何在审查制度的宏观层面和具体案件的微观层面发挥作用。然后使用这些概念来探索和理解欧洲人权公约第 16 号议定书最近引入的咨询程序。我们认为，这种机制理论上提供了一种比欧洲人权法院有争议的管辖权下进行的审查更抽象的审查类型，但仍然允许具体性的重要元素进入分析。第 1 号和第 2 号咨询意见确认了这一点。