CELEX: 62017TA0458
Language: en
Date: 2018-11-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-458/17: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2018 — Shindler and Others v Council (Action for annulment — Institutional law — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU — Agreement setting out the arrangements for withdrawal — Article 50 TEU — Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations with the United Kingdom with a view to conclusion of that agreement — UK citizens residing in another EU Member State — Preparatory act — Act not open to challenge — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

4.2.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 44/35
            
         
      Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2018 — Shindler and Others v Council
      (Case T-458/17) (1)
      
      ((Action for annulment - Institutional law - Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU - Agreement setting out the arrangements for withdrawal - Article 50 TEU - Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations with the United Kingdom with a view to conclusion of that agreement - UK citizens residing in another EU Member State - Preparatory act - Act not open to challenge - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
      (2019/C 44/45)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicants: Harry Shindler (Porto d’Ascoli, Italy) and 12 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: J. Fouchet, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)
      
         Re:
      
      APPLICATION under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of 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).
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      The Court:
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Dismisses the action as being inadmissible.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Declares that there is no longer any need to rule on the European Commission’s application for leave to intervene.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Orders Mr Harry Shindler and the other applicants, whose names are listed in the annex, to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Orders the Commission to bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.