Luxembourg alleges that the decision of the Uk to leave the EU has no legal consequences directly on the citizens,
the future of The Brexit less bad
The possible scenarios after the agreement of the Brexit
The agreement between the Uk and the EU: “A tragedy for Europe”
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has declared this Monday as inadmissible the petition of 13 british citizens living abroad seeking to cancel the activation on the part of the british Government in the famous article 50 to leave the Union, alleging that it had violated his right to vote in the referendum in June 2016.
The plaintiffs were residing abroad when the british Government organised the referendum on the membership of Uk to the EU on 23 June 2016. Given that they were not able to participate in the consultation, allege that they were deprived of their right to vote; that the decision to which this gave place, the Council act of accepting it, has consequences on the rights conferred on them by the EU treaties and, therefore, violates their rights. The Council replied saying that the mere activation of article 50 had no effect on the rights of the citizens and any natural or legal person may contest the decision of the Uk to leave the EU.
The court, based in Luxembourg, in line with the position of the Council, has decided to declare inadmissible the complaint. Luxembourg submits that the Council’s decision to ok the activation of the Brexit and start the negotiations is not an act as such, and also only has legal effect for the Union and its member states, but “does not produce direct effects in the legal status of the claimants.”
The CJEU underlines that the plaintiffs err in alleging that are directly affected in terms of, in particular, to their condition of citizens of the Union”. Recognizes that while their legal situation “can be affected by the withdrawal of the United Kingdom,” this can not be assessed at the day today, then will be the consequence of the fruit of the negotiations. But it was not the result of the negotiations, which concluded last November 24, the plaintiffs challenged, but the mere fact of the opening of the talks between the EU and the Uk for the Brexit. “The contested decision is merely an act of formality that does not prejudge the content of the eventual final agreement,” he insists Luxembourg, “especially when the object of the contested decision is not to determine those rights in the event that no agreement can be reached,” he warns.
The plaintiffs also claim that the Court of Justice of the EU is “the only one who can guarantee their right to an eective remedy”. However, Luxembourg considers that the appeal should have been lodged with the Uk, which would be responsible for both the activation of article 50 as of that certain citizens could not vote.
The european court will examine on Tuesday another case that could put a brake on the Brexit, just a few days after that member states have given the green light to the agreement out of the United Kingdom of the European Union and the political declaration on the future relationship. The resource is presented. Luxembourg should determine whether the United Kingdom could unilaterally cancel its decision to leave the EU, pursuant to article 50, at the request of a scottish court. The Court is aware of the urgency of a decision, before the imminent vote of the House of Commons of the agreement for the Brexit.
According to the criteria of
Learn more
