Appeal judges have ruled that a Scottish court has to properly examine claims that the UK should be able to unilaterally abandon Brexit without permission from other EU member states.

A panel of three judges led by Scotland’s most senior judge, Lord Carloway, the lord president, said the cross-party group of politicians behind the case had raised a point “of great importance” that had to be fully heard.

The group, which includes Labour, Scottish Green party, Scottish National party and Liberal Democrat politicians, wants the European court of justice to issue a definitive ruling on whether the UK can unilaterally withdraw its article 50 letter which triggered the Brexit process.

They say UK government ministers and the European commission are wrong to insist that the article 50 process can only be abandoned if all the other 27 EU member states agree. They argue that EU treaties make no mention of that condition.

The group, whose members include MSPs from Holyrood, Westminster MPs and two MEPs, need the permission of a Scottish court to send the case to the European court.

The appeal hearing at the court of session, Scotland’s civil court, was arranged after another judge, Lord Doherty, had thrown out the group’s initial application for an interim hearing of the case for a referral to the European court.

The appeal hearing ruled Doherty was wrong to claim the issue was hypothetical and academic since the UK government had insisted it had no intention of abandoning Brexit and so far there was no evidence parties at Westminster would block it.

Carloway said that raised significant problems for the petitioners because the statements so far by UK ministers on whether article 50 could be unilaterally withdrawn were ambiguous.

Even so, in a legal victory for the petitioners, Carloway said they were right to argue that the Westminster parliament was sovereign.

“The issue of whether it is legally possible to revoke the notice of withdrawal is one of great importance,” he said. “After all, if parliament is to be regarded as sovereign, the government’s position on the legality of revoking the notice may not be decisive.” </s> A group of Scottish politicians who want to stop Brexit have won an appeal to have their case heard at the Court of Session.

The petitioners want the European Court of Justice to decide if the UK could unilaterally halt the withdrawal process.

Those behind the petition include two Green MSPs as well as Labour and SNP MEPs.

The UK Government has argued that triggering Article 50 means Brexit cannot be halted and the only two options are to leave with an agreed deal or to exit without a deal at all.

Earlier this year, Lord Doherty of the court's Outer House threw out the petition, calling it "hypothetical and academic", but appeal judges ruled on Tuesday that he had "erred" and the case should indeed be considered at the Court of Session.

The Court of Session will now decide whether to refer the case to the European Court of Justice, the highest court in EU law, to give its opinion on the question.

In his written judgment on the appeal, Lord Carroway wrote: "The issue of whether it is legally possible to revoke the notice of withdrawal is, as already stated, one of great importance.

"On one view, authoritative guidance on whether it is legally possible to do so may have the capacity to influence Members of Parliament in deciding what steps to take in advance of, and at the time of a debate and vote on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

"After all, if Parliament is to be regarded as sovereign, the government's position on the legality of revoking the notice many not be decisive."

He added later: "In short, therefore, having regard to all the circumstances, the court is of the view that the Lord Ordinary erred in holding that there is no 'real prospect of success' in this petition.

"There is a point of substance, albeit one heavily concealed by the averments which should be argued in the normal way."

Download: The STV News app is Scotland's favourite and is available for iPhone from the App store and for Android from Google Play. Download it today and continue to enjoy STV News wherever you are. </s> A cross-party group of Scottish politicians has won permission for a judicial review of whether the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50.

The MEPs and MSPs want to get a ruling from the European Court of Justice on whether Brexit could be called off.

Lord Doherty had originally rejected their application for a review, saying it had little prospect of success.

However, after an appeal a panel of judges said there was "a point of substance" to be addressed in the case.

Lord Carloway, Scotland's top judge, overturned Lord Doherty's decision and has allowed permission for a judicial review to proceed.

The legal action was launched by a group of politicians from the SNP, Labour, the Scottish Greens and the Lib Dems following a crowdfunding campaign.

The politicians, who are backed by the Good Law Project campaign group, said they were seeking "clarity to inform the democratic process" on whether Brexit could be halted, so that politicians know "what options are open to them".

They want their case referred to the EU's Court of Justice to determine whether it would be lawful for the UK to revoke Article 50, the mechanism which was used to trigger exit in March 2017.

However Lord Doherty said that "given that neither parliament nor the government has any wish to withdraw the notification", the question whether or not it could be done unilaterally "is hypothetical and academic".

He said: "The fact of the matter is that parliament has not proposed, let alone enacted, legislation directed to the United Kingdom's withdrawal of its Article 50 notification.

"The government's policy is not in conflict with the legislative will of parliament. Parliament authorised the government to give the notification. Neither parliament nor the government wishes that the notification be withdrawn.

"In those circumstances it is not a matter which this court, or the Court of Justice of the European Union, require to adjudicate upon."

The politicians appealed against this ruling, and this was subsequently considered by a panel of judges in the Inner House of the Court of Session, led by Lord Carloway.

He was critical of the arguments put forward, saying the petition had "significant problems" and calling the position of the UK government "ambiguous".

He said that if the petition was "shorn of its rhetoric and extraneous and irrelevant material and reduced, after adjustment, to a manageable size", then "a case of substance - albeit not necessarily one which is likely to succeed - can be discovered".

Lord Carloway added: "The issue of whether it is legally possible to revoke the notice of withdrawal is one of great importance. On one view, authoritative guidance on whether it is legally possible to do so may have the capacity to influence members of parliament in deciding what steps to take in advance of, and at the time of, a debate and vote on the EU Withdrawal Bill.

"After all, if parliament is to be regarded as sovereign, the government's position on the legality of revoking the notice may not be decisive."

He concluded that there was "a point of substance, albeit one heavily concealed" in the case, "which should be argued in the normal way".

The judge said he would allow some time for the two sides to formulate their arguments before further hearings in the Scottish courts are set. </s> A legal challenge to the UK Government on Brexit can proceed to a full hearing in the Scottish courts, the country's most senior judge has ruled.

Lord Carloway, the Lord President, said a previous decision to dismiss the case had "erred" in ruling that there was "no real prospect of success".

He has now granted permission for the challenge - which has been brought by a cross-party group of politicians from Holyrood and the European Parliament - to proceed.

Jo Maugham QC, director of the Good Law Project and one of the petitioners, tweeted: "The Inner House of the Court of Session has given us permission."

While Lord Carloway was critical of the "rhetoric and extraneous and irrelevant material" in the petition, he stated there was a "point of substance" which should be "argued in the normal way" in court.

Labour, Scottish Green and SNP representatives united to bring forward the legal challenge, with Green MSPs Andy Wightman and Ross Greer, SNP MEP Alyn Smith and Labour MEPs David Martin and Catherine Stihler all involved, along with Mr Maugham.

The group believe the UK Parliament could unilaterally halt the Brexit process if the final deal negotiated by the Government is rejected by MPs in the House of Commons.

They claim this offers a third option, instead of Britain having to choose between a bad deal on the UK's future relationship with Europe or crashing out of the EU with no deal.

The group is ultimately seeking a definitive ruling from the European Court of Justice (CJEU) on whether the withdrawal process triggered under Article 50 of theTreaty on European Union can be revoked by the UK on its own, without first securing the consent of the other 27 EU member states.

Their legal team went to the Court of Session - Scotland's highest civil court - in Edinburgh in February to ask a judge to refer the question to the Luxembourg court.

Judge Lord Doherty originally refused to move the case on, saying the issue was "hypothetical and academic", and that he is "not satisfied the application has a real prospect of success".

However, in his opinion Lord Carloway said: "The issue of whether it is legally possible to revoke the notice of withdrawal is, as already stated, one of great importance."

He added: "On one view, authoritative guidance on whether it is legally possible to do so may have the capacity to influence Members of Parliament in deciding what steps to take in advance of, and at the time of, a debate and vote on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

"After all, if Parliament is to be regarded as sovereign, the Government's position on the legality of revoking the notice may not be decisive."

Lord Carloway said that given the case related to "a matter of very great constitutional importance", the court had taken "quite some time to consider the petition" - although he said this was "an exceptional course and it is not one which a court should follow in the ordinary case". </s> A cross party group of Scottish politicians have won the right to have their attempt to find out if Brexit can be cancelled heard in the courts.

The group of Green, SNP and Labour politicians are attempting to find out if the UK can go to the European Court of Justice for a judicial review on whether it can unilaterally withdraw its Article 50 notification.

Earlier this year a judge at the Court of Session refused to allow their action to proceed. Lord Doherty rejected their application on the grounds that “the prospect of success falls very far short”.

But Andy Wightman and Ross Greer of the Greens, the SNP MEP Alyn Smith and Labour MEP’s David Martin and Catherine Stihler have successfully appealed Lord Docherty’s decision.

In upholding the politicians’ appeal in the Court of Session the Lord President Lord Carloway said a “case of substance albeit not necessarily one which is likely to succeed, can be discovered”.

Lord Carloway said: “The issue of whether it is legally possible to revoke the notice of withdrawal is, as already stated, one of great importance. On one view, authoritative guidance on whether it is legally possible to do so may have the capacity to influence Members of Parliament in deciding what steps to take in advance of, and at the time of, a debate and vote on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. After all, if Parliament is to be regarded as sovereign, the Government’s position on the legality of revoking the notice may not be decisive.“

DOWNLOAD THE SCOTSMAN APP ON ITUNES OR GOOGLE PLAY </s> The EU’s top court has ruled the UK can revoke Article 50 and halt Brexit without the permission of other member states.

A judgement by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on Monday gives the UK the right to unilaterally withdraw its notification to leave the EU.

Judges ruled revoking Article 50 is possible until the UK's withdrawal agreement enters into force or - if no deal is reached between London and Brussels - until the end of the two-year Article 50 negotiating period.

The UK could even decide to reverse Brexit within "any possible extension" to the Article 50 period, the court said.

In addition, if Article 50 is revoked, the UK could remain in the EU under the current terms of its membership, judges ruled.

This would allow the UK to keep its rebate on EU budget contributions, continue to opt-out of justice and home affairs legislation, and remain outside of the passport-free Schengen area and the euro single currency.

Withdrawing the Article 50 notification, made by Prime Minister Theresa May in March 2017, must be done in accordance with the UK's "national constitutional requirements" and should be "unequivocal and unconditional".

The court's ruling noted this would represent "a sovereign decision to retain its status as a member state of the EU", while judges highlighted a principle that a member state cannot be forced to leave the EU against its will.

The judgement by the Luxembourg court comes on the eve of a House of Commons vote on Mrs May's Brexit deal, which is expected to be roundly rejected by MPs.

There are suggestions the government could yet pull the vote if she remains on course for a heavy defeat.

Monday's ruling follows an opinion delivered last week by the ECJ's advocate general Campos Sanchez-Bordona, who told the court it should allow the UK to withdraw its notice of intent to leave the bloc.

The case, which the UK government tried to prevent, was brought by a cross-party group of Scottish politicians and was heard by judges last month.

The group included SNP MP Joanna Cherry, SNP MEP Alyn Smith, Labour MEPs David Martin and Catherine Stihler, Green MSPs Andy Wightman and Ross Greer, and barrister Jolyon Maugham.

Liberal Democrat Brexit spokesperson Tom Brake and Labour MP Chris Leslie were listed as additional parties in court documents.

Mr Leslie, who is campaigning for a second EU referendum, described Monday's ruling as a "massive, game-changing moment".

He told Sky News: "If the British people, potentially through a people's vote, want to reverse out of this process, they now have that right.

"And that, I think, will electrify the debate, certainly in parliament.

"This notion that the prime minister has put up which somehow is an ultimatum, you have to take her deal or there's no deal, that is no longer the case.

"It is now legally certain that, if the British people want, they can change their minds."

However, Environment Secretary Michael Gove - a leading figure in the Brexit campaign - stressed the ruling would not prevent the UK leaving the EU next year.

"We don't want to stay in the EU. We voted very clearly - 17.4million people sent a clear message that we want to leave the EU and that means also leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"So, this case is all very well but it doesn't alter either the referendum vote or the clear intention of the government to make sure that we leave on 29 March.

"And the most effective way of leaving is to support the deal the prime minister has proposed." </s> A legal attempt by anti-Brexit campaigners to establish that Britain could unilaterally reverse Brexit was given a boost on Tuesday by Scotland's top court, which said it wants to examine the case in greater depth.

The group behind the legal challenge, who include pro-EU Scottish lawmakers, want to show that Britain could stay in the European Union after all, if for example the Brexit negotiations resulted in an unfavourable deal.

The campaigners are ultimately seeking a formal opinion by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) asserting that Britain could reverse its decision to invoke Article 50 of the EU's Lisbon Treaty, the formal step that kickstarted the Brexit process.

They argue that once the terms of Brexit have been negotiated, Britain's sovereign parliament may well decide not to go ahead with it, so lawmakers need to know in advance if that is legally possible.

As things stand, there is no suggestion of a change of course over Brexit, which British voters backed by 52 to 48 per cent in a June 2016 referendum. The ruling Conservative Party and main opposition Labour Party are both committed to Britain leaving the European Union.

The legal case, spearheaded by anti-Brexit campaigning lawyer Jolyon Maugham, had been rejected by a lower Scottish court.

On Tuesday, the Court of Session, Scotland's highest court, rejected the earlier ruling, saying the case raised important issues and there should be a full hearing so all the arguments can be developed.

Once such a hearing has taken place, a decision will be made on whether the case should be referred to the ECJ.

If it ultimately requests the ECJ clarify the issue, the Luxembourg-based court will be "bound to reply to the questions asked," the court said.

The petitioners argue that while there is no doubt that Britain could stop Brexit with the permission of the other 27 members, it should seek to establish a legal right to do so unilaterally whether the rest of the bloc likes it or not.

The British government argues that the question of whether it alone can stop Brexit is irrelevant, since the issue was decided by the 2016 referendum and there are no plans for a second referendum.

The petitioners have said they will go all the way to Britain's Supreme Court if necessary. </s> The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that the UK can unilaterally revoke its withdrawal from the EU.

The court found that if the UK does decide to revoke Article 50 and stop the Brexit process it would remain in the EU as a member state and the revocation must be decided following “democratic process”.

In a statement, the ECJ said: “In today’s judgment, the full court has ruled that, when a member state has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, as the UK has done, that member state is free to revoke unilaterally that notification.

“That possibility exists for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between the EU and that member state has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period from the date of the notification of the intention to withdraw from the EU, and any possible extension, has not expired.”

It added: “The revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements. This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicated in writing to the European Council.”

The ECJ ruling comes ahead of tomorrow’s crunch vote on Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal.

The court ruled, contrary to the UK Government’s position, that the case is “relevant and not hypothetical”.

However, the UK Government has said its policy is not to revoke Article 50.

The case was brought by a cross-party group of Scottish politicians, Labour MEPs Catherine Stihler and David Martin, SNP MP Joanna Cherry and MEP Alyn Smith, and Green MSPs Andy Wightman and Ross Greer, together with lawyer Jolyon Maugham QC, director of the Good Law Project.

They argued that unilateral revocation is possible and believe it could pave the way for an alternative option to Brexit, such as a People’s Vote to enable remaining in the EU.

Lawyers representing the Council of the European Union and from the European Commission argued that revocation is possible but would require unanimous agreement from all member states.

The case was originally heard by the Court of Session in Edinburgh and two attempts by the UK Government to appeal against the referral to the European Court were rejected.

The case will be referred back to the Court of Session, where judges are expected to “frank” the decision and declare the European Court’s answer to be the law on the matter.

Mr Wightman hailed the “momentous” ruling, saying: “It is now clear that the UK can, if it chooses, change its mind and revert to our current EU membership arrangements.

“MPs now know that stopping Brexit altogether is an option open to them before the end of the Article 50 period.

“Parliament can now back a People’s Vote in the knowledge that a Remain outcome could be acted on unilaterally, should that be what people decide.”

Environment Secretary Michael Gove told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “We voted very clearly - 17.4 million people sent a clear message that we wanted to leave the European Union and that means also leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

“So, this case is all very well but it doesn’t alter either the referendum vote or the clear intention of the Government to make sure that we leave on March 29.” </s> A legal attempt by anti-Brexit campaigners to establish that Britain could unilaterally reverse Brexit was given a boost on Tuesday by Scotland's top court, which said it wants to examine the case in greater depth.

The group behind the legal challenge, who include pro-EU Scottish lawmakers, want to show that Britain could stay in the European Union after all -- if, for example, the final terms of Brexit negotiated by the government were rejected by parliament.

The campaigners are ultimately seeking a formal opinion by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) asserting that Britain could reverse its decision to invoke Article 50 of the EU's Lisbon Treaty, the formal step that kickstarted the Brexit process.

They argue that once the terms of Brexit have been negotiated, Britain's sovereign parliament may well decide not to go ahead with it, so lawmakers need to know in advance if that is legally possible.

As things stand, there is no suggestion of a change of course over Brexit, which British voters backed by 52 to 48 percent in a June 2016 referendum. The ruling Conservative Party and main opposition Labour Party are both committed to Britain leaving the European Union.

The legal case, headed by anti-Brexit campaigning lawyer Jolyon Maugham, had been rejected by a lower Scottish court.

The British government argued that the question of whether Britain could unilaterally stop Brexit was irrelevant because the will of the voters was clear and the government was not going to back out of Brexit.

On Tuesday, the Court of Session, Scotland's highest court, overturned an earlier ruling, saying the case raised important issues and there should be a full hearing so all the arguments could be debated.

"The issue of whether it is legally possible to revoke the notice of withdrawal is, as already stated, one of great importance," the Court of Session said, referring to the Article 50 process which started in March 2017.

"On one view, authoritative guidance on whether it is legally possible to do so may have the capacity to influence(lawmakers) in deciding what steps to take in advance of, and at the time of, a debate and vote on the European Union(Withdrawal) Bill."

Once a full hearing has taken place in Edinburgh, a decision will be made on whether to refer it to the ECJ, the court said, although it may ultimately decide that it should not.

If the Scottish court decided not to refer to the ECJ, the petitioners can take their appeal to Britain's Supreme Court.

They argue that while there is no doubt that Britain could stop Brexit with the permission of the other 27 members, it should seek to establish a legal right to do so unilaterally whether the rest of the bloc likes it or not.
The Court of Session allows an appeal by a cross-party group of Scottish politicians seeking court permission for a referral to the European Court of Justice. The group wish for a ruling that the UK can abandon Brexit without permission from the European Union's other member states. A lower court will examine the claim.