do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-442/21: Action brought on 23 July 2021 — Thomas and Julien v Council
Date: 2021-07-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAEC, United Kingdom, cooperation agreement (EU), equal treatment, freedom of movement, national, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, rule of law, signature of an agreement, trade agreement (EU)








C_2021412EN.01001401.xml










11.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 412/14






Action brought on 23 July 2021 — Thomas and Julien v Council
(Case T-442/21)
(2021/C 412/15)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Rhiannon Thomas (London, United Kingdom), Michaël Julien (Weybridge, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Fouchet, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the trade agreement signed on 30 December 2020 by the Council of the European Union and the UK government, and the decision of the Council of the European Union No 2021/689 to sign it, taken on 29 April 2021, in so far as they approve Article Comprov16 and in so far as they do not maintain the free movement of UK nationals with close family and ownership ties in the territory of the European Union under Article VSTV 1;










—


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





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging the infringement of the rule of law by the trade and cooperation agreement between the European Union and European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part (‘the agreement’). In that regard, the applicants claim that Article COMPROV16 of that agreement excludes almost all of the provisions from any possibility of being contested before the courts and in particular before the Courts of the European Union.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of individuals’ fundamental rights, maintained in the European Union, to close family and ownership ties. That plea is divided into three limbs.






—


The first limb alleges infringement of the applicants’ right to legal certainty in so far as the stable situation which they peacefully enjoyed for decades without restrictions has been replaced by an unstable situation.










—


The second limb is alleges the infringement of the principle of equality, on the ground that the agreement equates very different situations, which leads to discrimination based on nationality.










—


The third limb alleges the infringement of the principle of proportionality, in so far as the agreement ignores the consequences of the requirement of a long-term visa on the applicants’ situation, in particular with regard to their private and family life.