Palabras clave
Parlamento Europeo – elecciones – derecho de voto – Gibraltar – Ciudadanía de la Unión – Nacionalidad – Commonwealth.
Resumen
La sentencia objeto de estudio se inserta en la controversia hispano-británica sobre la soberanía de Gibraltar y afecta al particular estatuto jurídico del que goza dicho territorio en la Unión Europea. El punto de partida es la adopción por el Reino Unido de la European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003, en cumplimiento de la sentencia del TEDH (as. Matthews 1999). El recurso por incumplimiento del Derecho comunitario interpuesto por España contra el Reino Unido, se fundamentó: a) en primer lugar, en el modo en que el Reino Unido ha organizado las elecciones al Parlamento Europeo en Gibraltar, extendiendo el derecho de voto a nacionales de terceros países que no gozan de la ciudadanía de la Unión (los Qualifying Commonwealth Citizens que residen en Gibraltar). Ello supone para España una violación del TCE, al defender que existe una relación clara entre la ciudadanía de la Unión y el derecho de sufragio activo y pasivo en las elecciones al Parlamento Europeo; b) en segundo lugar, en la integración del territorio de Gibraltar, no del electorado gibraltareño, en la circunscripción
electoral del suroeste de Inglaterra, violando, según España, el anexo I del Acta de
1976 relativa a la elección de los diputados al Parlamento Europeo por sufragio universal directo, y la Declaración de 18 de febrero de 2002, que desestimó el recurso de España. Una argumentación española más focalizada en los límites al anexo I del Acta de 1976 hubiera podido conducir a unas argumentaciones de las partes y fundamentación del TJCE que habrían podido desembocar en un resultado diferente al de esta sentencia.
electoral del suroeste de Inglaterra, violando, según España, el anexo I del Acta de
1976 relativa a la elección de los diputados al Parlamento Europeo por sufragio universal directo, y la Declaración de 18 de febrero de 2002, que desestimó el recurso de España. Una argumentación española más focalizada en los límites al anexo I del Acta de 1976 hubiera podido conducir a unas argumentaciones de las partes y fundamentación del TJCE que habrían podido desembocar en un resultado diferente al de esta sentencia.
Keywords
European Parliament – Elections – Right to vote – Gibraltar – Citizenship of the Union – Nationality – Commonwealth.
Abstract
The judgment under study concerns the controversy between Spain and
the United Kingdom on the sovereignty of Gibraltar and affects the legal status of Gibraltar in the European Union. The point of departure for this study stems from the adoption by the United Kingdom of the European Parliament (Representation) Act –EPRA 2003, in order to comply with the judgment of the ECHR in the case of Matthews vs UK, 1999. Spain points out that its action covers solely elections as they are held in Gibraltar and not the United Kingdom’s recognition of the right to the so-called Qualifying Commonwealth Citizens (QCCs) residing in its territory to vote for the European Parliament. It raises two pleas in law in support of its action: a) By the first, it claims that the extension of the right to vote in European Parliament elections, as provided for by the EPRA 2003, to persons who are not United Kingdom nationals for the purposes of Community law infringes the
EC Treaty’s Articles that, according to the Spanish claims, recognise the right to vote and to stand as candidates of citizens of the European Union alone; b) By the second, it claims that the creation of a combined electoral region (combing the territory of Gibraltar with an existing electoral region in England to form a new electoral region) is contrary to the annex I of the Act concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage (1976) and to the commitments made by the United Kingdom Government in the Declaration of February 18, 2002. But the ECJ dismissed the action of Spain. In our opinion, a Spanish argument focused on the limitations of the annex I of the 1976 Act would have been able to direct the arguments of the parties and the foundations of the ECJ to a different ending.
the United Kingdom on the sovereignty of Gibraltar and affects the legal status of Gibraltar in the European Union. The point of departure for this study stems from the adoption by the United Kingdom of the European Parliament (Representation) Act –EPRA 2003, in order to comply with the judgment of the ECHR in the case of Matthews vs UK, 1999. Spain points out that its action covers solely elections as they are held in Gibraltar and not the United Kingdom’s recognition of the right to the so-called Qualifying Commonwealth Citizens (QCCs) residing in its territory to vote for the European Parliament. It raises two pleas in law in support of its action: a) By the first, it claims that the extension of the right to vote in European Parliament elections, as provided for by the EPRA 2003, to persons who are not United Kingdom nationals for the purposes of Community law infringes the
EC Treaty’s Articles that, according to the Spanish claims, recognise the right to vote and to stand as candidates of citizens of the European Union alone; b) By the second, it claims that the creation of a combined electoral region (combing the territory of Gibraltar with an existing electoral region in England to form a new electoral region) is contrary to the annex I of the Act concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage (1976) and to the commitments made by the United Kingdom Government in the Declaration of February 18, 2002. But the ECJ dismissed the action of Spain. In our opinion, a Spanish argument focused on the limitations of the annex I of the 1976 Act would have been able to direct the arguments of the parties and the foundations of the ECJ to a different ending.