Protocol 16 to the European Convention of Human Rights introduced the procedure allowing national courts to request the European Court of Human Rights to issue advisory opinions on question of principle relating to
the interpretation or application of the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention or the Protocols. Since 2018,
the ECtHR has issued only five advisory opinions, the first of which was mostly criticized. Moreover, only seventeen
State-Parties have ratified the Protocol so far. Therefore, the author tries to assess first four years of the functioning
of the Protocol. He considers if the Protocol was really needed and is it functional? After presenting the solutions
adopted in Protocol 16, he briefly discusses the advisory opinions issued by the Tribunal so far. The Author observes
that despite the criticisms an overall assessment of the main idea of the Protocol is positive. It undoubtedly creates the first legal basis for dialogue between key judicial authorities in the State-Parties of the Convention and the Court of Strasbourg. Although the primary objective of this dialogue is to strengthen the implementation of the provisions of the Convention in the domestic legal systems, the institution of request for an advisory opinion by national courts will act as a constructive instrument in shaping European human rights standards. The introduction of a new mechanism can also be considered as another step toward making the Strasbourg Court the constitutional court determining the most important issues concerning the human rights standard at the European level.