## Facts

- Matthews v United Kingdom concerned the right to vote in European Parliament elections for residents of Gibraltar, a British Overseas Territory.
- The applicant challenged the UK's exclusion of Gibraltar residents from these elections.
- The UK argued this exclusion was due to obligations under the EU treaties, specifically the Treaty of Rome, which did not provide for voting rights for Gibraltar residents in European Parliament elections.
- The case examined the compatibility of the UK's actions, based on its implementation of EU law, with its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

## Issues

1. Whether the exclusion of Gibraltar residents from European Parliament elections violated Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR (the right to free elections).
2. Whether the UK's reliance on EU law absolved it of responsibility for potential violations of the ECHR.
3. Whether the ECHR applies to actions by member states when implementing EU law.

## Decision

- The European Court of Human Rights held that Article 3 of Protocol 1 guarantees the right to free elections and applies to the European Parliament elections in question.
- The Court affirmed its jurisdiction to review the UK's actions for compatibility with the ECHR, even when these actions were based on the requirements of EU law.
- The Court found that the UK's exclusion of Gibraltar residents from voting was disproportionate and violated Article 3 of Protocol 1.
- It was emphasized that member states remain responsible for upholding ECHR obligations, even while implementing EU law, and cannot use EU law as justification for restricting protected rights.
- The Grand Chamber upheld the Chamber's decision, affirming the importance of the right to vote and the principle of state accountability under the ECHR.

## Legal Principles

- Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR guarantees the right to free and fair elections.
- The jurisdiction of the ECtHR includes actions taken by states in implementing EU law.
- Member states retain responsibility under the ECHR for their actions, even when these actions are mandated by EU law.
- Restrictions on fundamental rights such as the right to vote must be justified and proportionate.
- The ECHR takes precedence in safeguarding fundamental rights, and member states cannot evade their Convention obligations by reference to EU law.

## Conclusion

Matthews v United Kingdom established that a member state cannot use EU law as a defense against claims of violating rights protected by the ECHR. The Court found the UK's exclusion of Gibraltar residents from European Parliament elections unlawful, reinforcing the continued primacy of the ECHR and the responsibility of member states to uphold Convention rights even when implementing EU obligations.

Matthews v United Kingdom (1999) 28 EHRR 361