The ECJ decided today that the Brexit notice can be revoked unilaterally. Some remarks (thread) curia.europa.eu/juris/document…
1) admissibility: the UK had argued (indeed it’s only argument) that the case was inadmissible. Nobody wants to revoke- revocation is hypothetical.
The Court in its response largely relied on settled case-law deferring to the referring court. What the hell does that mean?
It was a Scottish Court that had asked the ECJ the question of revocability. The Scottish Court had decided that the question was not hypothetical in its case.
If the Scottish courts allow such a case for a declaratory decision, the Court can decide the questions referred by the Scottish Court in the case.
2) substance: the Art. 50 notice can be revoked unilaterally. No need for the Council to agree. Just the domestic constitutional requirements to follow.
Withdrawal must be in writing, unequivocal and unconditional.
The effect: the membership of the withdrawing member is confirmed on terms unchanged as regards its status as a member.
A remarkable issue: the judgment does not repeat the AGs comment that Withdrawal needs to be in good faith respecting loyal cooperation. So is that gone?
Technically I’d argue that those two obligations apply anyway across the board. So no need to mention them. Nevertheless remarkable that the court doesn’t.
.@Sime0nStylites argues that the the requirement that the purpose of the revocation is to reconfirm membership sort of contains a good faith requirement (para 74) 
@Sime0nStylites I am not sure this adds anything, however. Your argument would still be that the ‘official’ purpose is not the real one, that the Withdrawal is not in good faith - and that obligation applies even if not mentioned.
