Commission: letter of formal notice sent to UK re the internal market bill and the withdrawal agreement. Invites the UK to reply within a month.
An explanation of the legal process - thread
The Commission is using the infringement procedure, which applies if Member States allegedly breach EU law. It applies to UK too for now, due to Art 131 of the withdrawal agreement, which gives CJEU its usual jurisdiction during the transition period, including over the agreement
Starting the infringement process doesn't establish by itself that UK has broken the law. It contains several pre-litigation phases. After the one month expires, the next phase is a reasoned opinion to the UK. Usually two months to reply to that, but the Commission can shorten.
After that deadline expires, Commission can go to CJEU and ask for a ruling on the point. The legal position is assessed as of the deadline to reply to the reasoned opinion. Commission can ask for interim measures - ie an order for UK to not pass/suspend parts of the law.
The Commission can also ask the CJEU to fast track its case, so to decide in a few months rather than the usual 12-18 months. Art 86 of the withdrawal agreement says that the case will not 'time out' due to the end of the transition period.
*IF* the Court rules in the Commission's favour it's binding on the UK at international level. But the bill, if passed, purports to block any impact of CJEU rulings at domestic level. Someone might try to litigate in UK courts on that.
If the UK ignores the Court's ruling the usual process is to go back to the CJEU and ask it to impose fines. But it's not clear if the withdrawal agreement allows for this route post-transition period. Instead Commission could use arbitration under the withdrawal agreement.
If an arbitration ruling goes against the UK, and is ignored by the end of the period to comply with it, then fines or suspension of part of the agreement (not the citizens' rights part) could result.
But ultimately this may be political theatre on the EU side, to match the UK. There are lots of 'off ramps' in an infringement proceeding - most of these cases are settled before they ever reach the CJEU. Possible for case to be dropped if the bill is amended as part of a deal.
There might also be a political impact, ie no trade talks (but note the EU has not left the talks) or no ratification, or no unilateral measures such as on data protection or financial equivalence.
nb if Brexit bros say this must go to an international court - Art 168 of the withdrawal agreement says that the dispute settlement rules in the agreement are exclusive, ie no other process can be used.
1/ Imagine taking this guy seriously as a source of interpretation of EU law. In my field, the ultimate example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Let's look at the claim in more detail.
2/ "illegal": Digital Services Act expressly provides for the possible negotiation of commitments from the platform
"Secret": Art 80 DSA expressly requires publication of those commitments
"Other platforms did a deal": according to the Commission, all other cases are pending
2/ "illegal": Digital Services Act expressly provides for the possible negotiation of commitments from the platform
"Secret": Art 80 DSA expressly requires publication of those commitments
"Other platforms did a deal": according to the Commission, all other cases are pending
2/ EU/UK youth mobility treaty proposal - questions and answers
Note equal treatment in tuition fees, points re traineeships, visa fees, health surcharges, application to all Member States - would UK government accept all this? (Also a question to ask Labour)
3/ EU/UK proposed youth mobility treaty - text of proposed Council decision and explanatory memo
Note it would also include family reunion (not further detailed at this point). Dispute settlement system of the Brexit deal would apply (not the CJEU) commission.europa.eu/publications/c…
2/ The context of the bill is the recently agreed Rwanda treaty. The issues in clause 1.3 *might* be enough to convince courts to change their mind on the safety of Rwanda since the Supreme Court judgment, but as we'll see it's a moot point: the bill dispenses with courts anyway.
3/ clause 1.4.b is correct: an Act of Parliament that breaches international law is still valid *domestic* law. BUT it will remain a breach of international law.
(We are likely to hear from people who do not understand these basic points)
2/ The spiel in the link confuses the two EU courts, which is not impressive. In fact the applicants in this case lost earlier in the EU General Court, then lost their appeal this year to the CJEU. And this omits to point out that the CJEU had ruled on the substance in June 2022.
3/ My comments on the previous judgment: '.
Because the Court ruled here that Brits lost EU citizenship because UK left the EU, it said this year that Brits had no legal interest to sue the EU to challenge the withdrawal agreement to get it back.eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2022/06/its-en…
Profoundly ignorant on both points. A) the Good Friday Agreement requires compliance with the ECHR. That necessarily entails the Strasbourg Court. There's no legal route to saying that it applies but to the peace process only. 1/
2/ And the idea that it applies to the "peace process" but not "foreign nationals" is confused - for the obvious reason that some of those covered by the former ground may be Irish citizens.
3/ The Strasbourg Court jurisdiction is relevant to Northern Ireland for a very, very obvious reason: it had ruled that the UK had breached the ECHR in Northern Ireland after British courts had ruled that it had not. "Just rely on British courts" therefore misses the point.