Sara Notario , 23 juin 2023

On 31 January 2020, the United Kingdom withdrew from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community as a result of the Brexit referendum, which took place in June 2016.

On 15^th June 2023, the Court of Justice delivered three judgments on the definitive dismissal of the actions brought by British citizens challenging the loss of EU citizen status as a consequence of the withdrawal of the UK government from the EU (C-499/21 P; C-501/21 P; C-502/21 P).

The applicants, UK nationals residing in the EU and in the UK, partly challenged the validity of the Council Decision (EU) 2020/135 of 30 January 2020 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 before the General Court of the EU arguing that the contested decision deprives them of their status as EU citizens and of the rights derived from it. The Council contested the admissibility of this action. The General Court upheld the plea of inadmissibility on the basis that the appellants did not satisfy the conditions under Article 263(4) TFEU to bring an action for annulment since neither the decision at issue nor the Withdrawal Agreement were addressed to the claimants, thus declaring cases inadmissible (T-252/20; T-198/20; T-231/20).

The claimants decided to lodge appeals against the three orders, invoking inter alia the right to effective judicial protection (C-499/21 P), the right to a fair trial and, as its corollary, the principle of equality of arms guaranteed under Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (C-501/21 P; C-502/21 P).

The Court of Justice dismissed the appeal on three grounds. First, the Court of Justice found that the General Court respected the appellants’ rights of defence. Second, the Court of Justice recalled its settled case law on the admissibility of an action of annulment brought under Article 263(4) TFEU. More specifically, it examined the question whether the appellants had an interest in bringing such proceedings and confirmed the General Court’s analysis concerning the inadmissibility of the case.

Finally, referring to its case law (cf. Wightman, C-621/18; Préfet du Gers, C-673/20), the Court of Justice hold that the decision to withdraw from the European Union under Article 50(1) TEU is the sole result of a state’s sovereign choice and, therefore, the loss of EU citizen status is “an automatic consequence of the sole sovereign decision taken by the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union […], and not of the Withdrawal Agreement or the decision at issue.” In fact, the acquisition of EU citizenship is directly linked to the possession of a Member State’s nationality – to the extent that this state retains its status as a member.

Drawing upon its settled case law, the Court of Justice unsurprisingly confirms the tight link between the rights derived from EU citizenship (such as, the right to vote and be elected in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence) and the status of nationals of an EU Member State. Considering the absence of a provision on the loss of EU citizenship mirroring Article 20 TEU, these cases clarify the definitive nature of the loss of the EU citizen status upon withdrawal from the EU and add up to the line of jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union showing the effect of Brexit on the life of citizens.

Reproduction autorisée avec la référence suivante : Sara Notario, The definitive loss of EU citizenship as a result of Brexit, actualité n° 22/2023, publiée le 23 juin 2023, par le Centre d’études juridiques européennes, disponible sur www.ceje.ch