Case T-198/20: Action brought on 30 March 2020 — Shindler and Others v Council
Date: 2020-03-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAEC, Gibraltar, United Kingdom, agreement (EU), discrimination on the basis of nationality, fundamental rights, national, principle of proportionality, ratification of an agreement, withdrawal from the EU








C_2020201EN.01004002.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/40






Action brought on 30 March 2020 — Shindler and Others v Council
(Case T-198/20)
(2020/C 201/54)
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul in its entirety Council Decision (EU) 2020/135 of 30 January 2020 on the conclusion of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and its annexes;
in the alternative:










—


partially annul Council Decision (EU) 2020/135 of 30 January 2020 on the conclusion of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, in so far as those acts distinguish, automatically and generally, without any test of proportionality, between EU citizens and United Kingdom citizens from 1 February 2020, and thus annul in particular the sixth paragraph of the preamble and Articles 9, 10 and 127 of the withdrawal agreement,
consequently:










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs of the proceedings, including lawyers’ fees amounting to EUR 5 000.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 13 pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 106a of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). The applicants consider in that regard, in particular, that the British people did not vote for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from Euratom and that the formalities relating to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from that organisation should have been respected.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a procedural defect concerning the nature of the final agreement. The applicants claim in that regard that the decision concluding the withdrawal agreement is unlawful in so far as it confers on the Union a ‘exceptional horizontal competence’ for the withdrawal agreement negotiations and thus affects the allocation of competences between the Union and the Member States by excluding the possibility of a mixed agreement and by thereby excluding any ratification by the Member States of the final agreement.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 127 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), in so far as the procedure provided for by that article for the termination of the agreement was not respected, which results, according to the applicants, in the contested decision being vitiated procedurally and renders it void.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a lack of a test of proportionality of the removal of EU citizenship with respect to certain categories of British citizens. The applicants consider that the contested decision must be annulled, on the ground that it did not take into account the impossibility for several categories of British citizens to vote during the referendum of 23 June 2016 on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union: those who have exercised their freedom of movement within the Union and have been absent from the territory of the United Kingdom for more than 15 years, citizens of overseas countries and territories, the Channel Islands and British prisoners.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principles of democracy, equal treatment, free movement, freedom of expression and sound administration. The applicants in particular claim that the contested decision is contrary to the legal order of the Union, which lays down the principle of equal treatment of all citizens and to the legal order of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 52 TEU and Articles 198, 199, 203 and 355 TFEU as regards the British overseas countries and territories. The applicants consider that by failing to refer to the relevant legal basis, namely Article 203 TFEU, the contested decision, which applies to the British overseas countries and territories, is unlawful and must be annulled.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging disregard of Gibraltar’s status by the decision of 30 January 2020, in so far as Article 3 of the withdrawal agreement infringes international law and, in particular, the principle of the peoples’ right to self-determination.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 4 TFEU, on the ground that the contested decision did not respect the principle of the division of competences between the Union and the Member States, which, in the light of the status reserved to Gibraltar, must result in its annulment.










9.


Ninth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations. The applicants claims in particular in that regard that the contested decision endorses the loss of their permanent rights of residence, acquired after five years of continuous residence in a Member State, although the concrete consequences of that loss were not foreseen and above all although no proportionality test was carried out.










10.


Tenth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to respect for private and family life guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The applicants claim that the contested decision affects their rights to private and family life in so far as it removes their European citizenship and, therefore, the right to reside freely in the territory of a Member State of which they are not citizens, but in the territory of which they have established their family life.










11.


Eleventh plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to vote and stand as a candidate of British citizens in municipal and European elections. According to the applicants, Article 127 of the withdrawal agreement infringes Article 18 TFEU and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The contested decision should therefore be annulled in so far as it ratifies an agreement containing a provision which creates discrimination between British citizens.










12.


Twelfth plea in law, alleging that the withdrawal agreement makes an automatic and general distinction between EU citizens and citizens of the United Kingdom without a proportionality test with regard to the private and family life of British citizens from 1 February 2020. In support of that plea in law, the applicants maintain that the removal of EU citizenship cannot be automatic and general, that a specific assessment of the consequences should have been carried out and that, in the absence of such an assessment, the contested decision must be annulled.










13.


Thirteenth plea in law, alleging that Article 12 of the withdrawal agreement be read in conjunction with Articles 18, 20 and 22 TFEU. The applicants consider that the discrimination introduced by Article 127 of the withdrawal agreement infringes the prohibition, confirmed in Article 18 TFEU, of any discrimination on grounds of nationality.