# C_2019383EN.01006601.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/66

---

Action brought on 20 September 2019 — Shindler and Others v European Commission

(Case T-627/19)

(2019/C 383/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Harry Shindler (Porto d'Ascoli, Italy) and five other applicants (represented by: J. Fouchet, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission’s express refusal of 13 September 2019 to acknowledge a failure to act; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s express refusal of 13 September 2019 to acknowledge a failure to act;

| — | rule that the European Commission unlawfully failed to take:






  — | first, a decision safeguarding the European citizenship of applicants of the United Kingdom who enjoy a private and family life in the other Member States of the European Union and did not have the right to vote on whether their Member State of origin should leave the European Union, based solely on the exercise of their freedom of movement (‘the 15-year rule’), irrespective of whether or not there is an agreement on the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

rule that the European Commission unlawfully failed to take:

—

first, a decision safeguarding the European citizenship of applicants of the United Kingdom who enjoy a private and family life in the other Member States of the European Union and did not have the right to vote on whether their Member State of origin should leave the European Union, based solely on the exercise of their freedom of movement (‘the 15-year rule’), irrespective of whether or not there is an agreement on the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union,

| — | secondly, a binding decision uniformly applicable in the other 27 Member States of the European Union in which citizens of the United Kingdom live, comprising various measures with regard to entry, stay, social rights and occupation, to apply in the absence of an agreement on the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, a binding decision uniformly applicable in the other 27 Member States of the European Union in which citizens of the United Kingdom live, comprising various measures with regard to entry, stay, social rights and occupation, to apply in the absence of an agreement on the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union;

consequently:

| — | take note of the failure to act; |
| --- | --- |

—

take note of the failure to act;

| — | order the European Commission to pay each of the applicants the sum of EUR 1 500 for the costs relating to their legal representation. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay each of the applicants the sum of EUR 1 500 for the costs relating to their legal representation.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights they derive from their European citizenship, whether or not there is a withdrawal agreement. In the context of that plea, the applicants rely in particular on:






  — | the lack of acknowledgment in the EU Treaties of the loss of European citizenship where a Member State leaves the European Union and, accordingly, infringement of the principle of legal certainty; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights they derive from their European citizenship, whether or not there is a withdrawal agreement. In the context of that plea, the applicants rely in particular on:

—

the lack of acknowledgment in the EU Treaties of the loss of European citizenship where a Member State leaves the European Union and, accordingly, infringement of the principle of legal certainty;

| — | infringement of the principle of proportionality; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the principle of proportionality;

| — | infringement of the right to respect for private and family life. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the right to respect for private and family life.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging unlawful failure to act on the part of the Commission, which adopted no binding measures but mere recommendations. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging unlawful failure to act on the part of the Commission, which adopted no binding measures but mere recommendations.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach, by the United Kingdom 15-year rule, of the audi alteram partem rule, the freedom of movement and the principle of equality before the right to vote. The applicants take the view in that respect that the 15-year rule is a national rule that places certain nationals of a Member State at a disadvantage simply because they have exercised their freedom to move and reside in another Member State and that it constitutes a restriction on the freedoms recognised by Article 21(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach, by the United Kingdom 15-year rule, of the audi alteram partem rule, the freedom of movement and the principle of equality before the right to vote. The applicants take the view in that respect that the 15-year rule is a national rule that places certain nationals of a Member State at a disadvantage simply because they have exercised their freedom to move and reside in another Member State and that it constitutes a restriction on the freedoms recognised by Article 21(1) TFEU.

---