Judgment of the Court (Full Court) of 10 December 2018.
Andy Wightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Session, Inner House, First Division (Scotland).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 50 TEU — Notification by a Member State of its intention to withdraw from the European Union — Consequences of the notification — Right of unilateral revocation of the notification — Conditions.
Case C-621/18. (2018)
Language: English

On 19 December 2017, a petition for judicial review was lodged in the Court of Session (Scotland, United Kingdom), in which the petitioners in the main proceedings — including one member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, two members of the Scottish Parliament, and three members of the European Parliament — seek a declarator specifying whether, when and how that notification can unilaterally be revoked. Those petitioners, in support of whom two other Members of the United Kingdom Parliament intervened, wish to know whether the notification referred to in Article 50 TEU can unilaterally be revoked before the expiry of the two-year period laid down in that article, with the effect that, if the notification made by the United Kingdom were revoked, that Member State would remain in the European Union. They asked the Court of Session (Scotland) to refer a question on that issue to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. In response, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union argued that the question was hypothetical and academic, in view of the United Kingdom Government’s stated position that the notification would not be revoked.
By decision of 8 June 2018, the Lord Ordinary (first instance judge of the Court of Session) declined to make a reference to the Court of Justice and refused the petition for judicial review on the grounds, first, that the issue was hypothetical in view of the United Kingdom Government’s position and because the facts upon which the Court would be asked to give an answer could not be ascertained and, secondly, that the matter encroached upon parliamentary sovereignty and was outwith the national court’s jurisdiction.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "The Lord Ordinary (first instance judge of the Court of Session)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, two members of the Scottish Parliament, and three members of the European Parliament."[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Court of Session (Scotland, United Kingdom)"[shape=doubleoctagon];


   "The Lord Ordinary (first instance judge of the Court of Session)"->"Decision 08/06/2018";
   "Decision 08/06/2018"->"Member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, two members of the Scottish Parliament, and three members of the European Parliament.";
   "Decision 08/06/2018"->"Declined to make a reference to the Court of Justice and refused the petition for judicial review."[dir=none];
   "Member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, two members of the Scottish Parliament, and three members of the European Parliament."->"Loged 19/12/2017";
   "Loged 19/12/2017"->"Court of Session (Scotland, United Kingdom)";
   "Loged 19/12/2017"->"Whether the notification referred to in Article 50 TEU can unilaterally be revoked before the expiry of the two-year period";
    
}