header-logo header-logo

Unilateral revocation in court

26 September 2018
Issue: 7810 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

UK could not be forced to revoke the Article 50 notice

The Court of Session in Edinburgh has referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) the question of whether the UK can unilaterally revoke Art 50, in a case brought by a group of MPs and MSPs.

The ECJ is asked whether EU law permits unilateral revocation and, if so, subject to what conditions and with what effect relative to the member state remaining in the EU.

David Greene, NLJ consultant editor and senior partner at Edwin Coe, who represented one of the litigants in the 2017 Supreme Court case on whether Parliamentary approval was required for Art 50 to be triggered, said the ECJ would need to be ‘super-fast’ to have a decision before the revocability issue becomes redundant in March 2019.

‘One wonders, however, whether politically it matters too much,’ he said. ‘If the UK decided to withdraw or revoke the Article 50 notice it would require political settlement in some fashion. A revocation in a political vacuum would be unworkable and is not on the table from either the UK or EU side. The UK could not be forced to revoke the Article 50 notice.

‘If it chose to withdraw the notice as it can do in accord with Article 50 one might assume the EU, the EU27 and the European Parliament would work to achieve that goal. It’s an interesting legal question but one wonders if it is of any consequence.’

Meanwhile, the London branch of the Unified Patent Court, originally scheduled to open in 2017, might not open at all if there is a no deal Brexit. In its latest tranche of technical papers, published this week, the government warns that it may have to withdraw from the court and unitary patent.

It said UK businesses would still be able to use the court and unitary patent to protect their inventions in EU countries but would have to rely on national patents in the UK.

It has previously insisted that the court is not an EU entity and therefore would not be affected by Brexit. The court is not an EU institution but is only open to 25 EU member states and would resolve disputes concerning the new unitary patent system.

Issue: 7810 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

DWF—19 appointments

DWF—19 appointments

Belfast team bolstered by three senior hires and 16 further appointments

Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Firm strengthens leveraged finance team with London partner hire

Knights—Ella Dodgson & Rebecca Laffan

Knights—Ella Dodgson & Rebecca Laffan

Double hire marks launch of family team in Leeds

NEWS
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve reports on Haynes v Thomson, the first judicial application of the Supreme Court’s For Women Scotland ruling in a discrimination claim, in this week's NLJ
Charlie Mercer and Astrid Gillam of Stewarts crunch the numbers on civil fraud claims in the English courts, in this week's NLJ. New data shows civil fraud claims rising steadily since 2014, with the King’s Bench Division overtaking the Commercial Court as the forum of choice for lower-value disputes
The Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment in July that overturned the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, once poster boys of the Libor and Euribor scandal. In NLJ this week, Neil Swift of Peters & Peters considers what the ruling means for financial law enforcement
Small law firms want to embrace technology but feel lost in a maze of jargon, costs and compliance fears, writes Aisling O’Connell of the Solicitors Regulation Authority in this week's NLJ
Artificial intelligence may be revolutionising the law, but its misuse could wreck cases and careers, warns Clare Arthurs of Penningtons Manches Cooper in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll