Judge Michal Matulník discusses the dialogue between the European Court of Human Rights and national courts at the ACA-Europe Colloquium in Helsinki

Judge of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic Michal Matulník participated in a colloquium organised by the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland in cooperation with the Association of the Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdiction of the European Union (ACA-Europe). The colloquium took place in Helsinki from 25 to 27 May 2025 and focused on the topic “Dialogue with the ECHR – the impact of its decisions and advisory opinions on national decision-making”.

The first part of the colloquium was devoted to the mechanism of advisory opinions under Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This mechanism was evaluated from a practical point of view, with participants describing their experience of using this relatively new instrument.

“The issue of climate change (and related litigation) has its specificity in that it is a complex problem requiring long-term, complex, costly and unpopular solutions, the formulation and adaptation of which is primarily a matter for the legislative and then the executive branch. The nature of the interests of the representatives of these powers (elected/created for a limited period of time, in addition to competing for the favour of the electorate) also implies their often reluctant approach. Nevertheless, replacing the role of the legislator with the activist approach of the courts (for example, by expanding the catalogue of human rights through the interpretation of others) cannot be considered a legitimate, expedient and ultimately correct approach, as it fundamentally conflicts with the principle of the separation of powers,” said Judge Michal Matulník in this regard.

The second working session was devoted to an analysis of the impact of the judgments of the ECHR on the national level, focusing specifically on two topical issues: climate change litigation and immigration law decision-making, specifically in relation to push-backs