Notices for publication in the OJ nº T-458/17 of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, September 29, 2017

• Resolution Date: September 29, 2017
• Issuing Organization: Tribunal General de la Unión Europea
• Decision Number: T-458/17

Action brought on 21 July 2017 - Shindler and Others v Council

(Case T-458/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Harry Shindler (Porto d’Ascoli, Italy) and 12 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 Council Decision (EU, Euratom) XT 21016/17 of 22 May 2017, together with the annex XT 21016/17, ADD 1 REV 2 to that decision, 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;

consequently,

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings in full, including legal fees of EUR 5 000;

without prejudice, in particular, to the submission by SCP CORNILLE-POUYANE, lawyers at the Bordeaux Bar, of all relevant observations at the hearing to be fixed by the General Court of the European Union.

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 formal illegality of Council Decision (EU, Euratom) XT 21016/17 of 22 May 2017, together with the annex XT 21016/17, ADD 1 REV 2, to that decision, authorising the opening of negotiations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for an agreement setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal from the European Union (‘the contested decision’). That plea is divided into two parts:

   First part, alleging infringement of the Euratom Treaty in that the contested decision and its annex provide for the automatic withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Atomic Energy Community in conjunction with the withdrawal from the European Union without being the subject of a separate withdrawal and negotiation procedure.

   Second part, alleging interference with the division of powers between the European Union and the Member States in that the contested decision and its annex confer on the European Union an exceptional horizontal competence to institute the negotiations on the agreement for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and exclude the possibility of a mixed agreement, with the result that there is no provision for ratification of the final agreement by the Member States.

2. Second plea in law, alleging substantive illegality of the contested decision; this plea is divided into three...