EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62021CN0499

Case C-499/21 P: Appeal brought on 13 August 2021 by Joshua David Silver, Leona Catherine Bashow, Charles Nicholas Hilary Marquand, JY, JZ, Anthony Styles Clayton, Gillian Margaret Clayton against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 8 June 2021 in Case T-252/20, Silver and Others v Council

OJ C 490, 6.12.2021, p. 17–18 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

6.12.2021   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/17


Appeal brought on 13 August 2021 by Joshua David Silver, Leona Catherine Bashow, Charles Nicholas Hilary Marquand, JY, JZ, Anthony Styles Clayton, Gillian Margaret Clayton against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 8 June 2021 in Case T-252/20, Silver and Others v Council

(Case C-499/21 P)

(2021/C 490/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Joshua David Silver, Leona Catherine Bashow, Charles Nicholas Hilary Marquand, JY, JZ, Anthony Styles Clayton, Gillian Margaret Clayton (represented by: P. Tridimas, Δικηγόρος, A. von Westernhagen, D. Harrison, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The Applicants claim that the Court should:

quash the order under appeal;

declare the application in Case T-252/20 admissible;

grant the orders sought by the applicants in the proceedings before the General Court;

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants consider that the General Court erred in law by finding that:

a)

the Appellants lack individual concern;

b)

Council Decision (EU) 2020/135 (1) on the conclusion of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community is not a regulatory act.

The Appellants argue that they have individual concern on the ground that:

a)

they are members of a closed group whose membership is fixed and cannot be added to after the entry into force of the contested decision;

b)

the contested decision deprives them of their Union citizenship status and the rights attached thereto. Given the character of citizenship as the fundamental status of EU nationals, those are specific and exclusive acquired rights which are indefeasible and which cannot be abrogated upon the withdrawal of the United Kingdom.

The Appellants also argue that the contested decision is a regulatory act on the ground that:

a)

According to the case law all acts of general application which are not legislative acts are regulatory acts;

b)

The fact that the contested decision gives effect to the Withdrawal Agreement which ranks higher than acts adopted by the EU institutions is not material;

c)

The argument that the Withdrawal Agreement may be regarded as being the equivalent externally to a legislative act internally is erroneous;

d)

The argument that the contested decision benefits from high democratic legitimation is incorrect.


(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2020/135 of 30 January 2020 (OJ 2020, L 29, p. 1).


Top