Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T02:47:13.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Denise Matthews v. The United Kingdom, Application No. 24833/94

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Beate Rudolf
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 93 , Issue 3 , July 1999 , pp. 682 - 685
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Article 3 provides: “The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.” Mar. 20, 1952, 1952 O.J. F.R.G., pt. II at 1880, as amended by Protocol No. 11 of May 11, 1994 (1995 O.J. F.R.G., pt. II at 579).

2 See Article 227 (4) of the EC Treaty Mar. 20, 1957. Art. 227, para. 4, 298 UNTS 11: “The provisions of this Treaty shall apply to the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible.”

3 Sept. 20, 1976, 1976 O.J. (L 278) 1.

4 Treaty on European Union, of Feb. 7, 1992, 1992 O.J. (C 224) 1. The treaty entered into force on November 1, 1993.

5 See Matthews v. UK, judgment of Feb. 18, 1999, para. 32 [hereinafter: Judgment].

6 See Matthews v. UK, Report of the Commission (Oct. 29, 1997) (visited jul. 11, 1999) <>.

7 As first stated in Tyrer v. United Kingdom, 26 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at 15, para. 31 (1978).

8 See, for this characterization, Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 113 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at 22, para. 47 (1987).

9 See Arts. 144 (power of censure), 158 (vote of approval necessary for appointment of the European Commission), 203 (approval necessary for adoption of budget), 206 (discharge of European Commission in respect of implementation of budget).

10 Melchers & Co. v. F.R.G., App. No. 13258/87, 64 Eur. Comm’n. H.R. Dec. & Rep. 138, 145 (1990).

11 The only dissenters were the British judge ad hoc Sir John Freeland and the Czech judge Karel Jungwiert.

12 Supra note 6, paras. 62 and 63. But see the joint dissenting opinion of commissioners Weitzel, Rozakis, Pellonpää, Conforti and Bratza, id. para. 2 of the dissent, joined by commissioner Schermers in his separate dissent, id.

13 See Lindsay v. The United Kingdom, App. No. 8364/78, 15 Eur. Comm’n. H.R. Dec. & Rep. 247 (1979); Alliance des Beiges de la Communauté Européenne v. Belgium, App. No. 8612/79, 15 Eur. Comm’n. H. R. Dec. & Rep. 259 (1979).

14 See Tête v. France, App. No. 11123/84,54 Eur. Comm’n. H.R. Dec. & Rep. 52 (1987); Foumier v. France, App. No. 11406/85, 55 Eur. Comm’n. H.R. Dec. & Rep. 130 (1988).

15 As proposed by the dissenting judges, supra note 11, para. 5.

16 See Judgment, para. 48.

17 See dissenting opinion of judges Freeland and Jungwiert, supra note 11, para. 9.