- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-383/19: Action brought on 21 June 2019 — CI and Others v Parliament and Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TN0383
62019TN0383
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
12.8.2019
Official Journal of the European Union
C 270/45
(Case T-383/19)
(2019/C 270/47)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicants: CI, CJ, CK, CL and CN (represented by: J. Fouchet, lawyer)
Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicants rely on three pleas in law.
annul Regulation (EU) 2019/592 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 2019 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders of Member States and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement, as regards the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union;
order the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings in full, including legal fees of EUR 5 000.
Pleas in law and main arguments
1.First plea in law, alleging infringement by Regulation (EU) 2019/592 of the acquired rights derived from European citizenship. In the first place, the applicants are of the opinion that the Parliament and the Council infringed their right to respect for private and family life in that for over fifteen years they have established their lives in another Member State of the European Union, a State with which they have a close connection: some of the applicants have spouses and children who are nationals from another Member State or they own property in another Member State.
2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement by the contested regulation of the status of Gibraltar, in that the reference to Gibraltar in the contested regulation as a ‘colony of the British Crown’ can only create an unfavourable climate for conciliation between Spain and the United Kingdom to the detriment of the rights of the inhabitants of Gibraltar.
3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the visa exemption granted to British citizens by Regulation 2018/1240, on the ground that the applicants will have to apply for an ETIAS travel authorisation and that there is therefore a possibility that they be denied that authorisation.