1/ Here's the latest Brexit legal challenge: a case before the EU General Court, arguing that the EU should have delayed the European Parliament elections due to UK citizens' need to get on the electoral register in the EU27. Some thoughts. 
2/ First: standing to sue. It's just as strict to bring a "failure to act" case against the EU as it is to bring an annulment action.
Second: remedies. The applicants aren't asking to overturn Brexit or the election, just for a declaration and nominal damages.
Second: remedies. The applicants aren't asking to overturn Brexit or the election, just for a declaration and nominal damages.
3/ Substance of the case: a mix of arguments about EU free movement law, the right to vote in EP elections, and Brexit-related issues. Problem with the ECHR point: Mr Shindler has already lost a similar case before the European Court of Human Rights about voting from abroad.
4/ It's not clear *how* the Council should have rejected the UK voting rule for its citizens abroad. There's no process for the EU Council to review national application of voting rules for EP elections. (UK courts rejected a challenge to these rules in a case called Preston)
5/ The challenge also covers EU citizens in the UK, saying that the EP vote in the UK was "unlawful" due to their difficulties in voting. There was also a mooted legal challenge in the UK on this, does @the3million have an update?
6/ Finally, Shindler claims that the refusal to postpone the EP elections was unlawful because it was "based on" the Council negotiating mandate for the Brexit withdrawal agreement, which is itself unlawful.
7/ However, this link is tenuous, and Shindler's arguments against the lawfulness of the Brexit withdrawal agreement negotiation mandate have already been rejected by the EU courts, as discussed here: eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2018/11/?m=1
8/ Overall: the case might have standing issues and if successful it might not change much. But if the Court rules on the substance it might clarify points related to Brexit, free movement and EP voting. Strongest claim: loss of EP voting rights in the State of residence.
