Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union can be divided into two parts. The first recognises the right of a member state to withdraw from the European Union. The second establishes the procedure that the withdrawing member state and the EU institutions have to follow to manage that withdrawal.

Article 50 says that the member state has to notify the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union. However it does not say whether, once such notification has been made, such intention may be revoked and membership retained.

This was the issue under consideration in a case brought before the European Court of Justice. The court has now ruled that a withdrawing member state may revoke its intention to withdraw from the EU unilaterally.

The key word here is “unilaterally”. In this context, it means that the revocation decision is not subject to the unanimous consent of the European Council, the European institution representing the member states.

However, it’s important to note that the court added that the decision to revoke Article 50 must be “unequivocal and unconditional”. This means that the member state has to make it clear that it wishes to maintain its EU membership. This is not about extending the Article 50 process to extend the Brexit transition period beyond March 2019. That would still require agreement from the EU member states. Rather, a notification revoking Article 50 means not leaving the EU at all. In other words, it would stop Brexit.

Of equal importance is timing. The court said a member state can only revoke Article 50 while its withdrawal agreement with the EU, which sets outs the terms of departure, has not yet entered into force. If the withdrawal agreement has not been concluded, revocation may take place during the two-year period that starts when Article 50 is triggered, or even beyond the two-year period if the remaining member states decide to grant such an extension.

In Brexit terms, this means that the UK can revoke Article 50 unilaterally before its agreement enters into force or, if it does not enter in force, until March 29 2019. It can also revoke it after that date if the European Council agrees to extend the transition period of Article 50 beyond 29 March 2019.

The ECJ case originally started in a Scottish court, which asked the Court of Justice to clarify the issue of revocation of the intention to withdraw from the EU. Given the misrepresentation given by Brexit supporters about the Court of Justice and their sudden hostility towards it, it’s important to remember that the Court of Justice interprets and applies EU law. It does not, nor can it, interpret or apply national law. This has always been the case since its establishment in 1952.

This was a challenging case because the the UK was the first country to ever trigger Article 50, so there was no legal precedent to rely on when making a decision. If the text of the law is silent, should it be implied that a particular conduct is allowed because it is not expressly prohibited, or should it be implied that it is not allowed because it is not expressly permitted?

In this typical interpretative dilemma, the court reasoned that if EU law recognises the sovereign choice of a member state to leave the EU, then revoking that intention should also be seen as a sovereign decision. It also noted that “given that a state cannot be forced to accede to the European Union against its will, neither can it be forced to withdraw from the European Union against its will”.

In this regard, the court noted that if a member state cannot unilaterally revoke its decision to leave the EU, then this would amount to allowing the expulsion of a member state. Indeed, the court noted that when drafting what eventually would become Article 50, a number of amendments to allow the EU to expel member states were rejected. This further supports the conclusion that a member state is entitled to reverse its decision unilaterally.

The ECJ ruling is not surprising. Legally speaking, it would have been much harder to justify the opposite conclusion. It is also in line with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which allows revocation of a decision to withdraw from an international treaty.

The immediate implication is that the EU member states are not allowed to interfere with the United Kingdom’s future course of action, for example by setting new conditions for allowing the UK to remain in the EU. However, like many domestic and international rulings, it has an internal political implication: it adds a further option to the current ones on the table. The pressure taken off from the EU is now entirely on the UK.

A revocation decision would run counter to the outcome of the UK referendum. It would be unpalatable, unattractive, and risky, but so are the other choices. By approving the withdrawal agreement, the UK becomes a rule-taker with no voice. By rejecting the withdrawal agreement, it faces serious and radical economic disruption. Either way, the ultimate decision must be made through the British political system. The ECJ ruling is another stark reminder of this enormous responsibility. </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 Tuesday'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. </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> The UK can unilaterally revoke its withdrawal from the EU, the European Court of Justice has ruled.

A spokeswoman for the court 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."

The spokeswoman continued: "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."

Monday's ruling upheld a finding by ECJ advocate general Manuel Campos Sanchez-Bordona, who said last week that Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty allows the "unilateral revocation of the notification of the intention to withdraw from the EU, until such time as the Withdrawal Agreement is formally concluded".

He rejected the contention that the mechanism for a member state to quit the trade bloc could only be reversed following a unanimous decision of the European Council.

It comes the day before Theresa May is due to attempt to get her Brexit Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament.

In Monday's ruling the judges ruled that a country's decision to revoke Article 50 after notifying the EU of its decision to withdraw "reflects a sovereign decision to retain its status as a Member State of the European Union, a status which is neither suspended nor altered by that notification", the spokeswoman added. </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> 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> 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> EU Court Rules That The UK Can Unilaterally End Brexit

The European Court of Justice has ruled that that member states can withdraw unilaterally from leaving the EU while they are still in the negotiating period. This confirms that the UK can revoke its Article 50 notice without having to consult the rest of the EU. </s> The UK can stop Brexit by unilaterally revoking its withdrawal from the EU, the European Court of Justice has ruled.

The EU's top court in Luxembourg has been considering the question whether the United Kingdom can decide not to proceed with leaving.

Lawyers in the EU argued that the UK should require a vote of other member states, while the government in Britain said the court should not rule on the question.

The advocate general of the court Manuel Campos Sánchez-Bordona gave his opinion last week which is not often overturned by the judges.

A spokeswoman for the court 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."

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon responded to the ruling on Twitter by saying: "So an extension of Article 50 to allow time for another vote, followed by revocation of Article 50 if the outcome is Remain seems to be an option that is now open to the House of Commons. "
The Court of Justice of the European Union rules that an EU member state's invocation of Article 50 TEU is unilaterally revokable.