Jump to Content Jump to Main Navigation

6 Responsibility, 6.3 Matthews v United Kingdom, ECtHR, App. No. 24833/94, 18 February 1999

Ana Sofia Barros

From: Judicial Decisions on the Law of International Organizations

Edited By: Cedric Ryngaert, Ige F Dekker, Ramses A Wessel, Jan Wouters

From: Oxford Public International Law (http://opil.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2023. All Rights Reserved.date: 27 September 2023

Human rights remedies — Membership of international organizations — International organizations, practice and procedure — Responsibility of international organizations — Universal international organizations

In the present case, the European Court of Human Rights’ analysis drew on the terms in which the European Convention on Human Rights would apply following state adhesion to an international organization. In particular, the Court was called upon to decide on the responsibility of the UK for not having ensured that within the legal system of the then European Community, laws would not be passed that were incompatible with that state’s obligations under the Convention. Although the matter in dispute regarded issues of a purely institutional nature and character, the Court (still) approached it as one engaging state responsibility for its participation in the EC. In a quasi-dogmatic fashion, the Court ascertained that the Convention does not preclude states from transferring competences to international organizations, provided that the rights prescribed therein continue to be secured.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.