Judgment of the\u00a0GCEU,\u00a09th Chamber, 26 November 2018 (Case T-458\/17), Harry Shindler e.a. v \/ Council of the European Union<\/p>\n
The General Court\u00a0of the\u00a0European Union\u00a0(GCEU)\u00a0ruled that British citizens residing in other Member States than the United Kingdom are\u00a0not\u00a0entitled to\u00a0seek\u00a0the annulment of the decision\u00a0of the Council of the European Union\u00a0to\u00a0start\u00a0EU\u00a0exit negotiations following\u00a0the\u00a0Brexit\u00a0referendum\u00a0because that decision does not produce binding legal effects\u00a0likely to affect the interests and the legal situation of these citizens.<\/strong><\/p>\n \n In\u00a0this\u00a0case, thirteen British citizens residing in EU Member States other than the United Kingdom had brought an action for annulment before the\u00a0GCEU\u00a0against the decision of the Council of the European Union authorizing the opening of negotiations on Brexit.<\/p>\n \n According to these thirteen applicants, the decision to open the negotiations had to be annulled on the grounds that – (i) it had a direct impact on the rights conferred upon them as European citizens by virtue of the European Treaties and that (ii) no constitutional authorization\u00a0(Article 50 of the EU Treaty provides for the possibility for a Member State to withdraw from the Union on the basis of a unilateral decision taken under its constitutional rules)<\/em>\u00a0had been granted in respect of that decision withdrawal from the UK.<\/p>\n \n The EU Council had asked the\u00a0GCEU\u00a0to declare the action inadmissible since the applicants had no interest or standing to act against that contested decision because it was not intended for them and did not legally affect them.<\/p>\n \n In its judgment, the\u00a0GCEU first\u00a0examined\u00a0whether the conditions of admissibility for an action for annulment had\u00a0been\u00a0fulfilled\u00a0or not. It followed from\u00a0this examination\u00a0that the decision to open the negotiations has no direct effect on the applicants’ legal situation and does not affect them because they live in other Member States than the UK.<\/p>\n Moreover, the GCEU\u00a0\u00a0emphasized\u00a0that the opening decision is only a preparatory act which does not make it possible to prejudge what will happen to the rights enjoyed by\u00a0the\u00a0British citizens (irrespective of their Member State of residence) in accordance with the European treaties. Finally, the\u00a0GCEU ruled\u00a0that it is not up to the EU institutions to verify whether or not a Member State that decides to leave the Union does so in accordance with its constitutional rules\u00a0or not.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Judgment of the\u00a0GCEU,\u00a09th Chamber, 26 November 2018 (Case T-458\/17), Harry Shindler e.a. v \/ Council of the European Union The General Court\u00a0of the\u00a0European Union\u00a0(GCEU)\u00a0ruled that British citizens residing in other Member States than the United Kingdom are\u00a0not\u00a0entitled to\u00a0seek\u00a0the annulment of the decision\u00a0of the Council of the European Union\u00a0to\u00a0start\u00a0EU\u00a0exit negotiations following\u00a0the\u00a0Brexit\u00a0referendum\u00a0because that decision does not produce […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[151],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8563","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-european-law"],"yoast_head":"\n