Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Brexit: legal consequences for the EU

Dispute-settling between the EU and the UK

  • Article
  • Published:
ERA Forum Aims and scope

Abstract

The UK’s withdrawal from the European Union will have the most profound effect on legal relationships between the EU and the United Kingdom.

The purpose of this paper is to address the consequences in two principal respects:

  1. 1.

    Whether any judicial institution will be able to resolve disputes concerning the interpretation or effect of the withdrawal agreement reached under Art 50. The UK will not agree to the CJEU having jurisdiction. The case law of the CJEU says that it will. This will not, however, extend to disputes with the United Kingdom. The difference is due to the fact that the UK follows a dualist approach to the effect of international agreements.

  2. 2.

    The effects of withdrawal on existing judicial proceedings. The withdrawal of the UK from the EU will not affect the jurisdiction of the CJEU to decide cases whether references for preliminary ruling or infringement actions commenced before the date when the UK’s membership ends.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Eeckhout/Frantziou [3], p. 1.

  2. Eeckhout/Frantziou [3], p. 38.

  3. ERA Conference: Brexit: Legal Consequences for the EU, 27–29 September 2017 in Brussels, where an earlier version of this paper was presented.

  4. It is, of course, the case that Scotland, at least in some respects, is a civil-law jurisdiction.

  5. ‘Has the identity of the English Common Law been eroded by EU Laws and the European Convention On Human Rights?’ Address at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore, Lord Neuberger, 18 August 2016, available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-160818-01.pdf.

  6. Case 17/74 Transocean Marine Paint v Commission, EU:C:1974:106.

  7. Johnston [5].

  8. H P Bulmer and another v J Bollinger SA and others [1974] 2 All ER 1226 at 1232.

  9. Neill [8]; see reply by Edward [2], p. 29.

  10. Colloquium held at the Court of Justice to mark the 60th anniversaries of the Treaties, quoted by Jacobs [4].

  11. Report on ‘EU police and criminal justice measures: The UK’s 2014 opt-out decision’, European Union Committee, available at: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/the-uks-2014-opt-out-decision1.pdf.

  12. ‘The United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, and a new partnership with the European Union’, May 2017, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-united-kingdoms-exit-from-and-new-partnership-with-the-european-union-white-paper.

  13. This position is stated repeatedly in other Position Papers, notably in the paper on ‘Ongoing Union judicial and administrative proceedings’, 13 July 2017, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ongoing-union-judicial-and-administrative-proceedings-position-paper.

  14. Robinson/Barker [9].

  15. Special meeting of the European Council (Art. 50) (29 April 2017), EUCO XT 20004/17. BXT 10 CO EUR 5 CONCL 2, para. 17.

  16. Ibid., para. 10.

  17. R (on the application of Miller and another) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Appellant), 24 January 2017 [2017] UKSC 5.

  18. Robinson/Barker [9].

  19. ‘Enforcement and Dispute Resolution, a future partnership paper’, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/enforcement-and-dispute-resolution-a-future-partnership-paper.

  20. Para. 2.7 of the White Paper, supra fn. 11.

  21. Para. 2.8 of the White Paper, supra fn. 11.

  22. Court of the European Free Trade Association.

  23. Case 181/73 Haegeman v Belgium [1974] ECR 449, paras. 4 and 5 of the judgment.

  24. Ibid., p. 473.

  25. Opinion 1/91 [1991] ECR I-6079, para. 35, relating to the interpretation of Article 219 EEC. See Case C-459/03 Commission v Ireland, EU:C:2006:42.

  26. Opinion 1/76 [1977] ECR 741.

  27. Opinion 2/13, EU:C:2014:2454.

  28. Article 292 EC.

  29. Case C-459/03 Commission v Ireland, EU:C:2006:42, para. 152 of the judgment.

  30. Maresceau [6], p. 693.

  31. Case 17/81 Pabst & Richarz [1982] ECR 1333.

  32. Case C-18/90 Office national de l’emploi v Bahia Kziber [1991] ECR I-199.

  33. See Mohr [7].

  34. Wigg and Cochrane v Attorney General of the Irish Free State [1925 1 I.R. 149 (the Irish Supreme Court); [1927] I.R. 285 (the Privy Council).

  35. Craig/de Búrca [1].

  36. With the possible exception of the ‘implementation period’ referred to by Mrs May in her Florence speech.

  37. Opinion 1/91 [1991] ECR I-6079, para. 35.

  38. Section 6(2).

  39. The Guardian [10].

  40. Subject, again, to the possible exception in the case of the ‘implementation period’ mentioned by Mrs May in her Florence speech.

  41. UK Position Paper: ‘Enforcement and Dispute Resolution: a future partnership paper’, supra fn. 19.

  42. Case C-26/62 N.V. Algemene Transport—En Expeditie Ondermening Van Gend & Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen [1963] ECR 1.

  43. Opinion 1/91 delivered pursuant to Article 228(1) of the Treaty [1991] ECR I-6079, para. 21.

  44. Report of the Court of Justice of the European Union for 2016. Appendix.

  45. European Commission: Position paper transmitted to EU27 on Ongoing Union Judicial and Administrative Procedures, 28 June 2017, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/position-paper-transmitted-eu27-ongoing-union-judicial-and-administrative-procedures_de.

  46. ‘Ongoing Union judicial and administrative proceedings—position paper’, 23 July 2017, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ongoing-union-judicial-and-administrative-proceedings-position-paper.

  47. Protocol 3 to the Treaty on European Union.

  48. Evidence to House of Lords European Union Committee on the ‘Process of Leaving the European Union’.

References

  1. Craig, P., de Búrca, G.: EU Law, Test, Cases and Materials, 6th edn. Oxford university Press, Oxford (2015)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Edward, D.: Judicial activism—myth or reality? In: Essays in Honour of Lord Mackenzie Stuart. Trenton Publishing, Trenton (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Eeckhout, P., Frantziou, E.: Brexit and Article 50 TEU: a constitutionalist reading. Common Mark. Law Rev. 54, 1–40 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Jacobs, F.: European Law and the English Judge. In: Andenas, M., Fairgrieve, D. (eds.) Tom Bingham and the Transformation of the Law. A Liber Amicorum. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Johnston, W.J.: The First Adventure of the Common Law. 36 LQJ (1920)

  6. Maresceau, M.: The Court of Justice and bilateral agreements. In: Rosas, A., Levits, E., Bot, Y. (eds.) Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court of Justice and the Construction of Europe: Analyses and Perspectives on Sixty Years of Case-Law Springer, Berlin (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mohr, T.: Guardian of the Treaty: The Privy Council Appeal and Irish Sovereignty. Four Courts Press, Dublin (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Neill, P.: The European Court of Justice—A Case Study in Judicial Activism. European policy forum, London (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Robinson, D., Barker, A.: ‘Many ways’ Brexit may go to EU courts, top ECJ judge says. Financial Times (21 November 2016)

  10. The Guardian: Judge calls for clarity on status of ECJ rulings in UK after Brexit (8 August 2017)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dublin, Ireland

    Nial Fennelly

Authors
  1. Nial Fennelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nial Fennelly.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fennelly, N. Brexit: legal consequences for the EU. ERA Forum 18, 493–511 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-018-0492-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-018-0492-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation