CELEX: 62019TN0541
Language: en
Date: 2019-08-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-541/19: Action brought on 1 August 2019 — Shindler and Others v Council

7.10.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 337/10
            
         
      Action brought on 1 August 2019 — Shindler and Others v Council
      (Case T-541/19)
      (2019/C 337/11)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicants: Harry Shindler (Porto d'Ascoli, Italy) and five other applicants (represented by: J. Fouchet, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: Council of the European Union
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicants claim that the General Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the Council’s implicit refusal of 3 July 2019 to acknowledge a failure to act as regards the lack of reply to the application dated 3 May 2019 requesting that the European elections of late May 2019 be postponed;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  declare that the Council of the European Union acted unlawfully by failing to postpone the European elections and accordingly modify the dates set out in Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2018/767 of 22 May 2018 in order to allow the British applicants to play an active part in the ballot of the 2019 European elections, which was crucial inter alia in the light of the ratification of a potential exit agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom;
               
            consequently,
      
                  —
               
               
                  take note of that failure to act;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Council to pay each of the applicants the sum of EUR 1 500 in respect of their legal costs.
               
            
         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 applicants’ right to vote in European elections protected by European law. In the context of that plea, the applicants allege in particular:
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              infringement of Article 9 TEU, Articles 20 and 21 TFEU and Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’);
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              infringement by the Council of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              infringement by the Council of the principle of equal treatment which is inherent to European citizenship and stems from Articles 20 and 39 of the Charter, and infringement of Article 1(3) of the 1976 Act, read in conjunction with Article 14(3) TEU.
                           
                        
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging threefold deprivation of the right to vote in the European elections due to the Council’s unlawful failure to act. In the context of that plea, the applicants consider in particular that:
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              the Council infringed the rights of British citizens by not calling into question, at the time of the European elections, the application of the ‘15-year rule’ which seriously infringes the right to move and reside freely, the principle of sound administration and the principle of equality in the exercise of the right to vote recognised by the Charter, and infringement of Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 10 thereof;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              the late postponement of Brexit on 11 April 2019 having taken place after the closing of national electoral registers amounts to an infringement of the right to move and reside freely, Article 50 TEU, the principle of sound administration and the principle of equality in the exercise of the right to vote recognised by the Charter, and Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 10 thereof;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              the ballot in the United Kingdom is unlawful because of the hastiness of the prorogation of Brexit and the unreasonable formalities required in respect of non-British European citizens living in the United Kingdom.
                           
                        
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law relating to a plea of illegality regarding the Council’s refusal to declare that it has failed to act and postpone the European elections. That refusal is based on Council Decision (EU, Euratom) of 22 May 2017 authorising the opening of negotiations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for an agreement setting out the arrangements for that Member State’s withdrawal from the European Union (document XT 21016/17), including the annex to that decision establishing directives for the negotiation of that agreement (document XT 21016/17 ADD 1 REV 2), considered to be unlawful by the applicants.