As we await the CJEU opinion in the Wightman case on revoking the Article 50 notice, here's my earlier thread on what to look for in the opinion.
See also:
1 Background to the case: eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2018/11/scotch…
2 Legal arguments on the issues: eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2018/01/can-ar…
See also:
1 Background to the case: eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2018/11/scotch…
2 Legal arguments on the issues: eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2018/01/can-ar…
Here's the press release on the Wightman opinion. Initial comments... 
1 The opinion isn't binding; the judges can come to a different view, and that might be more likely in a major case.
2 The opinion rejects the UK govt's inadmissibility arguments - ie the case is not hypothetical. Reflects deference usually shown to national courts' assessment.
2 The opinion rejects the UK govt's inadmissibility arguments - ie the case is not hypothetical. Reflects deference usually shown to national courts' assessment.
3 Case for unilateral revocability based on international law (Vienna Convention says that States can withdraw notifications) and interpretation of Article 50 as such. Several arguments here - including that's its a notification of "intention" to withdraw (the best argument imo)
4 Limits on withdrawal of notification:
a) it must be officially notified
b) it must follow national constitutional requirements - AG suggests parliamentary authorisation (Act of Parl or motion?) but that's surely up to UK law to determine in detail
c) time limit of two years
a) it must be officially notified
b) it must follow national constitutional requirements - AG suggests parliamentary authorisation (Act of Parl or motion?) but that's surely up to UK law to determine in detail
c) time limit of two years
Important question of detail on the time limit point - does right of withdrawal of the notification apply also if the period is *extended*?
d) good faith/sincere cooperation - presumably to protect against withdrawing and notifying again to extend the 2-year time limit
d) good faith/sincere cooperation - presumably to protect against withdrawing and notifying again to extend the 2-year time limit
AG opinion rejects Council/Commission view that withdrawing notification is *only* possible with consent of the remaining MS - though he says that would still be an *option*. (I suppose that's relevant if there were a renegotiation, though only Tony Blair thinks that will happen)
Overall, *if* followed by the Court, this would be an unqualified victory for those arguing for unilateral revocation. Whether it changes the political dynamics remains to be seen. I'll add a link to the full text of the AG opinion to this thread when it's out.
And here it is - the full text of the Advocate-General's opinion in the Article 50 revocability case (Wightman): curia.europa.eu/juris/document…
Blog post soon
Blog post soon
