May the Other Side Also be Heard? Some Remarks Regarding the Chances for a Response to Opinion 2/13 From the ECtHR on the Awakening of the EU Accession to the ECHR Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper takes up a question whether there exists a possibility for the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to take a stand on the (in)famous Opinion 2/13 by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and to address contained in it argumentation from the perspective of the Strasbourg system's conditions for accession. Particularly, it will focus on the question whether the Convention system provides for an appropriate procedure. The paper will not engage into a discussion on how the contentious issues should be addressed by the ECtHR, but will focus on answering whether it at all may have a chance to address them in the current legal setting through advisory procedures with which the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) system is equipped. The text will argue that even if both the Articles 47-49 of the Convention advisory procedure as well as the Protocol 16 to the Convention advisory procedure for the sake of their function and scope could not be applied to directly, holistically and systematically tackle Opinion 2/13, then at least the latter could provide a forum to do that in a limited scope and in an indirect way. While the mechanism has been designed with a completely different purpose, some of the features of the Protocol 16 advisory procedure may even seem to incite such a use, especially in the context of the increasingly turbulent relations between the CJEU and the European Union (EU) Member States’ highest courts and tribunals in the field of fundamental rights.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.045 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.051 | 0.037 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".