Please find below this month’s judgment from the CJEU of relevance to Brexit.
Tjebbes and Others v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken
Case number: C-221/17
Member state: The Netherlands
Date (decision published): 12.03.2019
Subject of case Whether EU precludes the loss of the nationality of a Member State and, consequently, the loss of citizenship of the EU, where the genuine link between the person concerned and that Member State is durably interrupted.
Summary of decision
Netherlands law states that an adult loses Netherlands nationality if he or she also possesses a foreign nationality and if, after attaining his majority, he/she has his principal residence for an uninterrupted period of 10 years outside the Netherlands and the EU. Provided that the competent administrative and judicial authorities are in a position to carry out an individual examination of the situation of the person concerned in the light of all the relevant circumstances, EU law (in particular Article 20 TFEU, read in the light of Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) does not preclude the loss of nationality of a Member State in the circumstances laid down in the Netherlands legislation.
Useful links (full judgment):
Shindler and Others v Council – Case Update (Appeal Rejected)
Case number: T-458/17
Member state: Italy/United Kingdom
Date (decision published): Original Judgment made on 26.11.2010. Appeal rejected on 21.03.2019
Subject of case: Appeal against the General Court’s previous ruling of inadmissibility.
Summary of decision
On 26 November 2018 the General Court of the European Union dismissed a case brought by World War Two veteran Harry Shindler and other Britons living on the continent against the Brexit negotiation, who had argued for the annulment of annulment of the Council Decision (EU, Euratom) of 22 May 2017 authorising the opening of Brexit negotiations with the United Kingdom. The Court dismissed the action as inadmissible because the Council’s move to start talks with London did not in itself carry any definite consequences for their rights.
On 21 March 2019, the Court dismissed the appeal. The Court ruled that the appeal was partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded, and ordered the applicants to pay their own cost
Useful links (original judgment – appeal not yet published):