MATTHEWS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 24833/94 [1999] ECHR 12 (18 February 1999)
Citation: MATTHEWS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 24833/94 [1999] ECHR 12 (18 February 1999)
Rule of thumb: Is it a human rights violation not to prove people with proper access to vote? Yes, if people are not provided with efficient access of being able to vote then this is a violation of the human right to the democratic making of societal rules.
Judgment:
the facts of this case were that there were European elections and the UK did not provide facilities for its citizens in Gibraltar (Gibraltar was deemed under legislation to be a part of the UK and not a foreign territory) to vote in these in the normal manner that its citizens there normally would. The Court held that this violated these citizens’ human right to live in a democratic state, ‘The Court recalls that the rights set out in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 are not absolute, but may be subject to limitations. The Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in imposing conditions on the right to vote, but it is for the Court to determine in the last resort whether the requirements of Protocol No. 1 have been complied with. It has to satisfy itself that the conditions do not curtail the right to vote to such an extent as to impair its very essence and deprive it of effectiveness; that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and that the means employed are not disproportionate. In particular, such conditions must not thwart “the free expression of the people in the choice of the legislature” (see the above-mentioned Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt judgment, p. 23, § 52). 64. The Court makes it clear at the outset that the choice of electoral system by which the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature is ensured – whether it be based on proportional representation , the “first-past-the-post” system or some other arrangement – is a matter in which the State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation. However, in the present case the applicant, as a resident of Gibraltar, was completely denied any opportunity to express her opinion in the choice of the members of the European Parliament. The position is not analogous to that of persons who are unable to take part in elections because they live outside the jurisdiction, as such individuals have weakened the link between themselves and the jurisdiction. In the present case, as the Court has found (see paragraph 34 above), the legislation which emanates from the European Community forms part of the legislation in Gibraltar, and the applicant is directly affected by it. 65. In the circumstances of the present case, the very essence of the applicant’s right to vote, as guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, was denied. It follows that there has been a violation of that provision’, President Wildhaber at 63-65
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.