21.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/20

(Case T-713/16)

(2016/C 428/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Fair deal for expats (Lauzun, France) and 8 others (represented by: R. Croft, L. Nelson, E. Hazzan, Solicitors, P. Green, H. Warwick and M. Gregoire, Barristers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—declare the instruction of the president of the Commission of the European Union communicated electronically by letter dated 28 June 2016 to the Members of the College of Commissioners of the EU, and identified in a speech by President Juncker to the plenary session of the European Parliament in Brussels on 28 June 2016 (SPEECH/16/2356), forbidding any negotiations by the Commission, formal or informal, with the UK government before its notification of withdrawal from the EU under Article 50 TEU, on the one hand, and, the statement of the President of the Commission of the European Union that he had given the instruction above to the Members of the College of Commissioners of the EU by way of ‘Presidential order’, as he expressly stated in that speech to the plenary session of the European Parliament in Brussels on 28 June 2016 and as recorded on both the English and French language Commission Press Releases of that speech (SPEECH/16/2353), on the other hand, void pursuant to Article 264(1) TFEU; and

—order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the disputed measures have no, or no proper, legal basis.

The applicants put forward that:

—there is no legal basis upon which the Commission may refuse to enter into discussions with the government of the United Kingdom and others following the outcome of the non-binding referendum pending any notice under Article 50 TEU;

—the basis of the disputed measures does not rest upon objective factors, and, it is reasonably to be inferred, rests upon the convictions of their author;

—the disputed measures were adopted in a manner that was a misuse of powers because their announcement in the speech as ‘presidential order’ was misleading to the European Parliament, staff and officials of the Commission and other EU institutions, governments of the Member States, and citizens of the EU.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the disputed measures discriminate against the UK and its citizens on the grounds of nationality contrary to Article 18 TFEU.

The applicants put forward that:

—the substance of the disputed measures are to prohibit the Commission from negotiating with representatives of the United Kingdom government;

—the UK, its citizens, and the applicants in particular, are placed at a substantial disadvantage thereby;

—the disputed measures further place the applicants at a disadvantage in their enjoyment of fundamental rights, including free movement.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the disputed measures are contrary to the applicants’ fundamental rights in EU law.

The applicants put forward that:

—the disputed measures are contrary to the applicants’ rights deriving from Art. 20(1) TFEU, including rights of free movement guaranteed by inter alia Art. 20(2)(a), 21(1), 45 and 49 TFEU and the Citizens Rights Directive 2004/38/EC (1);

—the disputed measures are contrary to the applicants’ rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the disputed measures have been adopted contrary to the principle of sincere co-operation under Article 4(3) TEU.

The applicants put forward that the disputed measures expressly forbid the Commission and its staff from complying with the principle of sincere co-operation by giving assistance to the UK and other EU Institutions in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that, to the extent the disputed measures have been adopted wholly or partly to deter or discourage the citizens of other EU Member States from the free expression of their opinions (regarding membership of the EU) as protected by Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, they are unlawful.

Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 158, p. 77).