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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll