This is uninformed, misleading and wrong. In fact I am livid at this tweet, which manages to distort the agreement beyond believe in a direct quote. Short thread
The tweet creates the impression that ECJ judgments remain binding on the U.K. - even those after transition. But the quote leaves out stuf - it says ‘...’
That omission? “in proceedings referred to in Articles 86 and 87”. Only in those proceedings are post-transition judgments binding on the UK.
What are those proceedings? 86 concerns cases that started before - and then run over the end of transition.
87 concerns infringement proceedings for violations of obligations during transition and such, which can be brought for up to 4 years after the end of transition.
So while @christopherhope ‘s tweet gives the impression that the provision gives the ECJ jurisdiction forever over the U.K., it literally does the opposite.
@christopherhope I would ask him to correct (and @anandMenon1 too who retweeted his tweet). How could that happen to @christopherhope ? Non-lawyers often find references to other articles tedious and don’t read them. That disastrously wrong!
