The Brexit Withdrawal Agreement: Overview and First Observations

Professor Steve Peers, University of Essex

Introduction

The recently agreed Brexit withdrawal agreement may turn out to be dead on arrival, or at some point not long after. Nevertheless, if the agreement is ratified, it is the basis on which the UK would leave the EU – unless the two sides agree to amendments to the text.

Since the agreement is both complex and legalistic, but also the subject of intense political debate, there’s a need for a summary and explanation of the text for non-lawyers. This blog post aims to do that by outlining the structure of the agreement and the main content of each part of it in turn. It does not aim to be exhaustive, but only to give a broad indication of what the agreement entails.

Throughout the blog post, I’ve scattered the answers to ‘key questions’ which have been raised about what the withdrawal agreement does. Let’s start with this one:

Key question: Does the withdrawal agreement cover the long-term relationship between the UK and EU after Brexit?

No. The withdrawal agreement governs only the details of leaving the EU, not the long-term relationship between the UK and EU. On that issue, alongside the text of the agreement, there was also initially a draft outline of the political declaration on the future UK/EU relationship. This is the basis for negotiations that would take place after Brexit day. This declaration has since been finalised. Finally, there’s also a joint report on the state of negotiations to date.

This is (hopefully) the first in a series of several blog posts on the withdrawal agreement. I aim to come back to three specific issues in more detail: the ‘backstop’ relating to the Irish border; the role of the CJEU; and the future relationship. (Update, Dec 8: the blog post on the future relationship is here).

Also, for more detailed discussion on parts of the withdrawal agreement, I’ll refer to some blog posts on the March draft of the agreement – although, as I point out below, that draft has been amended on a number of issues.

Key question: What if the withdrawal agreement is not ratified?

Unless the two sides agree to amend it and then ratify the amended text, in principle the alternatives are the UK leaving the EU without any withdrawal agreement, or staying in the European Union. However, it remains to be seen if remaining by revoking the Article 50 notice of withdrawing is even legally possible: the Wightman case, now pending before the CJEU, will clarify this issue. A general election might be held, but that will not in itself change the options available. The Brexit date could be delayed, but both the UK government and the EU27 Member States (acting unanimously) would have to agree to this.

The EU Commission has issued preparedness notices setting out its view on what would happen if the UK leaves the EU without a withdrawal agreement. The UK government has also issued its own no deal notices. Last week, the Commission published a communication explaining what it would do in the event of no deal. In particular, it would suggest unilateral EU measures to keep basic aviation services to the UK (less than current aviation service). It would not propose issuing extra lorry permits, so access to the EU by UK commercial drivers would be highly curtailed. There would be no ‘adequacy decision’ on flows of personal data from the UK to the EU, so digital services would be somewhat more complicated.

It also proposed to waive visa requirements for short-term visits by UK citizens to the EU (for 90/180 days). This will not address residence for longer periods, which will be subject to EU and national laws on non-EU citizens, which are more restrictive than EU free movement rules. (For more details of the law applicable to UK citizens visiting or staying in the EU after Brexit, see my discussion here).

Structure of the withdrawal agreement

Part One of the withdrawal agreement (Articles 1-8) sets out the “Common Provisions”. These deal with basic issues like definitions and territorial scope.

Part Two of the withdrawal agreement (Articles 9-39) deals with citizens’ rights, for those EU27 citizens in the UK, and UK citizens in the EU27, before the end of the transition period.

Part Three of the agreement sets out “separation provisions” (Articles 40-125), ie the exact details of phasing out the application of EU law in the UK at the end of the transition period.

Next, Part Four sets out the rules on the transition period (Articles 126-132), during which substantive EU law still applies to the UK for two to four years after Brexit day.

Part Five concerns the financial settlement (Articles 133-157).

Part Six sets out “Institutional and Final Provisions” (Articles 158-185). This includes rules on CJEU jurisdiction over EU27 citizens, dispute settlement, making further decisions to implement the agreement and rules on entry into force and dates of application.

In addition there are three Protocols to the agreement (these have the same legal force as the main treaty), on Irish border issues,  UK bases in Cyprus, and Gibraltar.

Part One: Common Provisions

The main legal issue in Part one is the legal effect of EU law for the UK. The agreement must have the same legal effect for the UK as EU law does for EU Member States – including the principles of direct effect (meaning that the agreement as such can be enforced in national courts) and implicitly supremacy (meaning that national law which breaches the agreement must be disapplied by national courts). The UK must also pass an Act of Parliament to give effect to the Agreement; this is above and beyond the planned ‘meaningful vote’ on the agreement in Parliament.

All references to EU law require it to be interpreted in accordance with the normal rules of EU law. As for case law of the CJEU, references to EU law must be ‘interpreted in conformity with’ CJEU case law delivered before the end of the transition period. However, the rule is different for CJEU case law after the end of the transition period: in that case, the UK courts and authorities are only required to have ‘due regard’ for the case law. Note that none of this gives jurisdiction to the CJEU as such as regards the UK (although other parts of the Treaty give the Court some jurisdiction).

References to EU law include that law as amended until the end of the transition period, while references to Member States include the UK except when they refer to having voting or representation rights on EU bodies etc.

Part Two: Citizens’ rights

This part will mostly not apply until after the end of the transition period, since free movement of people will continue during that period. In principle, it provides that EU27 citizens in the UK before the end of that period (and UK citizens who are in the EU27 before the end of that period) will retain the same rights as those who arrived before Brexit day. To that end, it requires the two sides to keep applying EU free movement legislation to the people concerned, including legislation on social security coordination and the recognition of qualifications.

Some aspects of their legal status will change, however: the UK or EU27 Member States may require them to apply to prove their right to stay on the territory. The UK in particular plans to implement this, by means of a ‘settled status’ scheme. The risk is that some people will not have the documentation to prove their right to stay. Some categories of people currently covered by EU law (such as UK citizens returning to the UK with non-EU family members, or UK children in the sole care of one non-EU parent) will not be covered by the withdrawal agreement, so their position will be up to UK law. Similarly a number of EU27 citizens who would not qualify for status because they do not meet the ‘comprehensive sickness insurance’ requirement will be covered by a unilateral waiver of this rule by the UK, not the withdrawal agreement.

Also, the rules on family reunion in EU free movement law (which are more favourable than those under national law or EU law on non-EU families) will only apply where the family relationship existed before the end of the transition period, or the family member was legally resident in the same State then. If the citizens commit a criminal offence after the end of the transition period, national rules on expulsions will apply – and they may be more stringent than EU free movement rules on this issue.

The CJEU will have jurisdiction to rule on how the rules apply to EU27 citizens in the UK, on the basis of requests from UK courts, for eight years after the transitional period ends. There will also be an independent monitoring body in the UK with power to bring court cases on their behalf.

For further details, see my annotation of a previous version of the citizens’ rights Part of the treaty, which is only a little different from the final version.

Key question: Does the withdrawal agreement end free movement of people?

Yes, free movement ends at the end of the transition period, unless the UK and EU decide to sign a separate treaty as part of the future relationship extending free movement in the future. Currently the UK government opposes this idea. The ‘backstop’ relating to Northern Ireland, if it ends up applying, does not include free movement of people, but only the continuation of the UK/Ireland common travel area, which is more limited.

The withdrawal agreement also ends free movement for UK citizens already in the EU27, unless (again) a separate treaty as part of the future relationship addresses this issue.

Part Three: Separation provisions

This part tells out exactly how EU law ceases to apply at the end of the transition period, for a list of different issues. It was mostly agreed in March, with a few more Articles agreed in June, and the rest agreed since. The biggest difficulties were over geographical indications (ie, protection for those who call their product ‘Parma ham’) and what happens to cases pending before the CJEU on Brexit day.

Key question: Is the UK bound to EU law on geographical indications forever?

No, but it would be guaranteeing the continued protection of geographical indications for products which were protected at the end of the transition period.

More precisely, this part sets out rules for ending the application of EU law as regards thirteen issues: goods placed on the market; ongoing customs procedures; ongoing VAT and excise procedures; intellectual property protection; police and criminal law cooperation; cross-border civil litigation; personal data; public procurement; Euratom; judicial and administrative procedures; administrative cooperation; privileges and immunities; and other issues, such as the European Schools.

Key question: Does the CJEU have jurisdiction in the UK indefinitely?

No. Some have misread Article 89 of the withdrawal agreement, which refers to CJEU jurisdiction as regards cases coming from the UK, to mean that the UK will be covered by the Court’s jurisdiction forever. In fact, Article 89 simply confirms that the Court will have jurisdiction for cases sent from UK courts before the end of the transition period.

After that point, UK courts can send the CJEU cases only in limited contexts: for eight years after the transition period ends as regards EU27 citizens in the UK, or the protocols on Northern Ireland (in part) and Cyprus. Also, the Court has jurisdiction after this point to decide on how to interpret EU law if a dispute about the withdrawal agreement goes to arbitration (see Part Six).

Furthermore, the Commission can sue the UK in the CJEU for failure to implement EU law correctly for four years after the end of the transition period (though this can only concern alleged breaches which occurred before the end of the transition period as an EU Member State, or under the transition period Part of the agreement). Finally, the Commission can sue the UK to enforce State aid and competition decisions which were based on proceedings which started before the end of the transition period, but concluded afterward. 

It is possible that the future relationship will provide for continued EU/UK cooperation on some of these issues, in which case some of these separation clauses either will not come into practical effect at all, or will only apply in part. For instance, the EU and UK might end up agreeing in a new security treaty on another form of fast-track extradition instead of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), and may therefore choose to agree different rules on transition from the EAW system to that new fast-track system.

Part Four: transition period 

This is a short part of the withdrawal agreement, yet it has the biggest effect: it keeps substantive EU law in place in the UK until the end of 2020.  It was agreed by March, except the negotiators have now added a new Article allowing for a possible extension.

The key elements of the transition period are that EU law (including new EU law) applies to the UK, except in areas covered by UK opt-outs (such as the single currency and justice and home affairs law; in the latter case, the UK retains part of its power to opt-in to new proposals on a case-by-case basis). There are special rules on external relations: for instance, the EU will notify non-EU countries that the UK should still be regarded as covered by EU free trade agreements, or other types of EU treaties between the EU and non-EU countries (the non-EU countries aren’t obliged to agree to this). The current rules on the allocation of fisheries catches can’t be changed to benefit either the EU or UK fishing fleets.

However, the UK will not be represented on any EU institutions or bodies – including on the CJEU, which will continue to have its usual jurisdiction regarding the UK during the transition period. The UK will only be consulted on new EU measures as a special exception. In one area – foreign and defence policy – the UK can refuse to apply new EU measures if it has fundamental objections to them, and the withdrawal agreement foresees an early treaty between the EU and UK that will replace the transition period rules.

For a detailed annotation of the transition period clauses – except for the extension clause which has now been added – see my earlier blog post.

Key question: Which EU laws does the transition period cover?

I’m often asked if the transition period covers a particular EU law like driving licences or aspects of the free movement of people, because readers can’t find a specific reference to that law in the withdrawal agreement. The simple answer is that the transition period covers all laws applying to the UK except a handful of exclusions, so the drafters didn’t bother with a list of those EU laws which are covered by it.

The EU laws which are not covered by the transition period are those about the European citizens’ initiative (on that process, see the case law discussed here) and also voting and standing for office in the European Parliament and local government. The UK (or its devolved legislatures) can, if it chooses, unilaterally continue to let EU27 citizens vote in local elections, and EU27 countries can choose to do the same for UK citizens. Also, as noted above, EU foreign and defence policy might not fully apply to the UK for the whole of the transition period.

This brings us to the new clause on extension of the transition period. It’s possible for the Joint Committee set up by the withdrawal agreement – which works by the mutual consent of the EU and UK – to decide by July 2020 if the transition period will be extended, for a period of up to a date to be decided (reportedly that date could be the end of 2022).

In that case, the transition period rules continue to apply to the UK for that extended period, except there would have to be an ad hoc negotiation on how much the UK pays into the EU budget during the extended period.  There are also special rules on agricultural support.

Key question: Can the UK be forced to stay in the transition period indefinitely?

No – and no. First of all, any extension of the transition period has to be agreed jointly, as noted already. Secondly, any extension won’t be indefinite, since the negotiators will add a final possible date for extension when they agree the final text of the withdrawal agreement.

On the other hand, the UK might theoretically end up in the backstop relating to Northern Ireland indefinitely. Although the withdrawal agreement says that this arrangement must be temporary, unlike the transition period there is no final date to end it and the UK cannot unilaterally end it at a certain date. However, the backstop is more limited in scope than the transition period, as it concerns only some EU laws (mainly on external trade, customs, and goods regulation, plus some limited application of EU laws on labour, the environment, state aids and competition in its Annexes). In particular, the backstop does not concern the free movement of people or services, or contribution to the EU budget.

Part Five: financial settlement 

This part incorporates the earlier agreement that the UK takes part in the EU’s spending until the end of the current budget cycle (end 2020), which matches the end of the transition period (unless that period is extended). As noted above, though, if the transition period is extended, the UK and EU will negotiate a separate EU contribution to the EU budget. It also includes UK payments to the budget incurred because the EU often makes financial commitments in one year and then pays them out in later years (the system known as reste à liquider). Furthermore, it includes continued payments to ‘off-budget’ EU spending such as commitments to developing countries, until the current versions of those programmes expire. For a detailed discussion of the finances of the deal, see reports from the OBR, the National Audit Office and the Institute for Government.

Key question: Has the UK agreed to pay £39 billion in return for nothing?

No. First of all, this begs the question: the EU regards the financial settlement as money which is payable in any event regardless of any future relationship, and took the view that the future relationship could not be formally negotiated before Brexit day anyway. Even on its own terms, the argument that ‘£39 billion is paid for nothing’ is wrong, since about half of of the money relates to the UK still applying substantive EU law during the transition period (see the OBR report), during which the UK still has its current access to EU goods and services markets (and vice versa). Anyway, a free trade deal could not have been negotiated in the time available, even if that had been legally possible (again: the EU says it was not).

Part Six: Institutional and Final Provisions

First of all, as noted above (in Part Two), the CJEU will have jurisdiction to rule on how the rules on citizens’ acquired rights apply to EU27 citizens in the UK, on the basis of requests from UK courts, for eight years after the transitional period ends. There will also be an independent monitoring body in the UK with power to bring court cases on their behalf. The two sides might agree to wind up the monitoring body at the end of the same time period.

Secondly, the CJEU will have jurisdiction, after the end of the transitional period, over the references to EU law in the financial settlement part of the agreement, in references from national courts or as regards Commission infringement actions brought against the UK.

Next, there’s a Joint Committee set up to oversee and implement the agreement. It will meet at least once a year, and there are a number of sub-committees dealing with specific issues like Northern Ireland and citizens’ rights. It can take certain decisions to add to the agreement – such as an extension of the transition period – but for all these decisions the EU and UK must both agree.

There are detailed rules on dispute settlement, providing for arguments about the agreement to go to a panel of arbitrators. However, if the arbitrators have to decide an issue of EU law when settling the dispute, they will have to ask the CJEU to give a ruling. This is unavoidable, since CJEU case law insists that the EU and its Member States cannot be bound by an interpretation of EU law other than the CJEU’s (see, for instance, CJEU Opinion 1/92).

The Northern Ireland backstop rules out the arbitration process (including the CJEU) from much of the ‘level playing field’ rules on labour law, environmental law, tax, and competition and state aids law (see below). However, the CJEU has jurisdiction over part of the backstop, as well as the Protocol on bases in Cyprus.

Key question: Does the CJEU have jurisdiction over the entire agreement?

No. The Court has its usual jurisdiction under the transition period, and following that specific jurisdiction over EU27 citizens’ rights and EU law referred to in the financial settlement, as well as the protocols on Northern Ireland (in part) and bases in Cyprus. But the arbitrators can only refer disputes over EU law to it, not disputes over the entire agreement – although a lot of the agreement does refer to EU law. Also, some key points in the backstop are outside the arbitrators’ or the CJEU’s jurisdiction.

Note that this part of the agreement differs a lot from the dispute settlement clauses as the Commission proposed them in March (see discussion here) – which included powers (tilted toward the EU) for both sides to impose sanctions on each other. The final version looks a lot more like traditional international dispute settlement, and is presumably a concession by the EU to the UK.

Finally, the last provisions of the main withdrawal agreement set out ‘boilerplate’ rules: confirming that the three Protocols and nine Annexes are binding; setting out the authentic languages of the text and the depositary; and setting the date of entry in force (30 March 2019). The withdrawal agreement applies from that date, except the parts on citizens’ rights, separation provisions, dispute settlement and the three Protocols mostly apply from the end of the transition period (with specified exceptions which apply immediately). There’s also a commitment to negotiate on the future relationship, referring to the separate joint declaration on that issue, ‘with a view to’ agreeing those texts by the end of the transition period ‘to the extent possible’.

Protocol on Irish border issues

The Northern Ireland Protocol starts with three new Articles compared to the March draft, on UK territorial integrity and emphasising that the Protocol is meant to be temporary. Also there’s a link back to the possible extension of the transition period mentioned above (Part Four). A new review clause was added, but both sides would have to agree to disapply the protocol partly or wholly.

As for the substance of the Protocol, it refers to equality rights and the common travel area between the UK and Ireland, as already agreed (these issues were never controversial).

Key question: Does the common travel area continue the free movement of people between the UK and EU?

No. The absence of border checks makes it impossible to refuse entry to people at the border with Ireland, but that does not mean any EU27 citizens crossing that border (besides Irish citizens) have the right to reside or work in the UK (and vice versa for people crossing into Ireland, besides UK and EU citizens). There is UK legislation on liability for employers, landlords et al who hire or do business with people who are not authorised to work or reside that will be relevant here.

Then there’s the UK-wide customs union backstop, part of which is specific to Northern Ireland. There are a number of elements of this. This part of the Protocol links to Annexes on: a) trade in goods between EU/UK/non-EU states; b) customs cooperation; and c) a ‘level playing field’, which means some degree of continued harmonisation of law relating to tax, the environment, labour law, state aid, competition, and public companies/monopolies.

However, this falls short of the obligations of EU Member States; there are limited obligations to keep up with new EU legislation and CJEU case law; and as noted above (Part Six), the arbitration rules (including CJEU jurisdiction) mostly do not apply to this ‘level playing field’. There’s a lot of EU law that wouldn’t apply to the UK – most notably the free movement of persons, services and capital, and contributions to the EU budget. So while the backstop would still commit the UK to a chunk of EU law on trade in goods, and in a limited way to some law in the ‘level playing field’ areas, the continued application of EU law would be much less than under the rules on the transition period.

The Protocol also contains provisions on the UK internal market, as well lists of specific EU laws that apply in Northern Ireland: product regulation, VAT and excise tax, agriculture and the environment, a single electricity market,  and state aids. There’s also a vague reference to other North/South cooperation. Finally, the institutional provisions of the Protocol provide that EU bodies, including the CJEU, have competence to apply or interpret the provisions of the Protocol that are specific to Northern Ireland.

Protocol on UK bases in Cyprus

This Protocol confirms that the bases in Cyprus remain within EU customs territory after Brexit, and EU regulations on goods, including agricultural and fisheries laws, still apply. EU law on excise taxes and VAT also continues to apply. Goods supplied to the staff on the bases are exempt from customs and taxes, and the UK and Cyprus may agree further rules on social security coordination. There are rules on checks at the border of the bases area, and a general obligation to cooperate to prevent fraud. Finally, the EU institutions, including the CJEU, have competence to apply and interpret EU law referred to in the Protocol.

Protocol on Gibraltar

First of all, this Protocol provides for the UK and Spain to cooperate on workers’ rights as regards the Spain/Gibraltar crossing. Next, it retains the status quo on access to aviation, unless the Joint Committee decides differently. It also contains general provisions on cooperation on tax and fraud, environmental protection and fishing, and police cooperation.

Assessment

The desirability of the withdrawal agreement can only be assessed in light of the alternative options available. Whether it’s possible to end the Brexit process at all by revoking the notification under Article 50 remains to be clarified by the CJEU, as noted above. If that’s not possible, Brexit could be averted only by extending the period of negotiations under Article 50 in order to amend the Treaties to permit revocation of the withdrawal notice, but that is a stretch.

Amendment of the text of the withdrawal agreement is technically possible, but the EU has signalled that it would not be willing to consider any significant amendment to the text. Holding a general election obviously appeals to anyone who wants a change of government in any event, but does not change the fundamental issues relating to the withdrawal agreement or the Brexit process as such.

Objecting to the withdrawal agreement because of objections to the separate future relationship declaration makes little sense. The EU always took the view that it would not and could not negotiate the future relationship formally before Brexit day, and there would anyway not have been enough time to negotiate a full future relationship in two years (unless the UK decided to stay in the EEA as an off-the-shelf model, which would still have required some separate issues to be negotiated). Furthermore, since the future relationship declaration is not binding, the nature of that future relationship is still all to play for.

The options as regards the withdrawal agreement are therefore to support it, to overturn the Brexit process (if that turns out to be legally possible), or to leave the EU without a withdrawal agreement, and therefore without a trade agreement. Each of these three options may individually lack a majority in Parliament, but the no deal option – although it probably commands the least support – is the default if one of the two other options does not command a majority. A no deal outcome – damaging UK exports to their largest market, leaving the position of UK citizens in the EU27 and EU citizens in the UK less secure, disrupting the UK security relationship with the EU, significantly limiting flights and commercial lorry transport with the EU, and raising barriers to transfers of data from the EU to the UK – is manifestly not in the UK’s interest, and no responsible politician should support it. The choice is therefore between the withdrawal agreement or reversing the Brexit process (if possible) as a means to avoid this end.

For supporters of Brexit, the withdrawal agreement may be a disappointment, applying substantive EU law to the UK for the transition period and potentially a proportion of EU law to the UK via the backstop after that. From this perspective, it’s unfortunate that the possibility of staying in the EEA – giving the UK a judge on the EFTA Court and consultation rights on EU proposals, limiting the effect of EU law in the UK, and possibly reducing the scope of EU law applicable to the UK at an earlier point – wasn’t explored from the outset as at least a partial substitute for the transition period.

However, given that new Member States have a transition period of several years when they join the EU (as the UK did when it joined the previous EEC) and usually gear up alignment with EU law for several years before joining, it was unrealistic to imagine ending the UK’s application of substantive EU law would happen all in one go. The withdrawal agreement recognises the unavoidable complexity of the process, phasing out membership via different stages while still offering options for a future relationship – subject to the need to avoid checks on the Irish border.

Whichever of these two routes is ultimately chosen – managed withdrawal or reconsidered reversal – it’s important to find a way of avoiding the worst-case scenario of a no deal Brexit: the project of greedy capitalists, seedy jingoists, tweedy fantasists and needy narcissists.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 27

Photo credit: BBC

Scotching Brexit? Background to the Wightman case about reversing the Article 50 notification unilaterally

Alan S. Reid, Senior Lecturer in Law, Sheffield Hallam University. The author welcomes comments on the blog at a.s.reid@shu.ac.uk

As the Brexit clock ticks down, and the diametrically opposed objectives of Theresa May's negotiating imperatives become ever more exposed, the clamour to clarify the processes and procedures surrounding Brexit intensifies.

At the tail end of 2017, a group of seven Scottish politicians, from across the political spectrum and from all three legislatures for Scotland (the Scottish Parliament, the UK Parliament and the European Parliament) commenced an action in the Scottish Court of Session, essentially seeking an answer to the simple question 'Can a member State of the European Union unilaterally revoke their Article 50 TEU notification to leave the EU?' The group is headed by Andy Wightman MSP, and the other pursuers are Ross Greer MSP, Alyn Smith MEP, David Martin MEP, Catherine Stihler MEP and Joanna Cherry QC MP. English MPs Tom Brake and Chris Leslie were joined in the case in May 2018.  The case was crowdfunded through the Good Law Project, headed by Jolyon Maugham, who is also a petitioner.

The pursuers are keen to know the answer to this question since they believe that the route to Brexit is not unidirectional and binary. For the pursuers, representing constituents in a nation of the United Kingdom which voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU referendum, Brexit does not have to result in 'Deal or No Deal'. Rather, there may be a third way: A People's Vote that includes the option to Remain in the European Union.

In order for a Scottish court to make any pronouncement on this legal question, the court would have to send a preliminary reference request to the European Court of Justice under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union since Article 50 TEU is a provision of EU law and by definition, only the CJEU can offer a binding interpretation of EU law for the entire EU.

In February 2018, the pursuer's application for judicial review (subject, in Scotland, to the Court of Session Act 1988, s. 27B) was refused by Lord Doherty in the Outer House of the Court of Session, on the basis that the question of the revocability or otherwise of an Article 50 TEU notification was a purely hypothetical and academic one, since both the UK Parliament and Her Majesty's Government had no yearning to resile from the path to Brexit (paras 10-14 of the judgment).  In particular, Lord Doherty opined that the pursuer's action had no reasonable prospect of success (para 8; see s 27B(2)(b) of the Act) since the matter was not a justiciable matter suitable for judicial determination.

The pursuers appealed the decision to refuse the judicial review and accompanying CJEU reference to a bench of three Scottish judges in the Inner House of the Court of Session by way of a reclaiming motion (which is the process whereby a decision of the Outer House of the Court of Session can be appealed). In their judgment, the panel of three judges heavily criticised the terms of the original judicial review pleadings as being overly complicated, unclear and potentially confusing and fell way below the standards expected for a judicial review application. (The clarity and structure expected in a judicial review claim were set out by Lord Hope in Somerville v The Scottish Ministers [2007] UKHL 44, at paras. 39, 46, 52 and 65. See also Lord Rodger's dicta at para. 88) Nevertheless, given the constitutional importance of the question raised, their lordships were minded to forgive such careless drafting and allow the appeal and remit the case to the Outer House for judgment (para 12). In the opinion of their lordships, the case was neither academic nor hypothetical given that the UK Government could be asked to revoke the Article 50 TEU notification at the request of the UK Parliament (para 30). But, even where the case were to proceed, the pursuers would need time to revisit and rephrase their averments (para 34).

Following a much amended set of pleadings, Lord Boyd of Duncansby heard the application for judicial review in June 2018. Lord Boyd refused the application and thus with it any chance of a preliminary reference request being submitted to the European Court of Justice (para 75). His Lordship's opinion hinged on the hypothetical and speculative nature of the claim. At the time of the judgment, the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 was still a bill progressing through Parliament and thus a definitive date for UK withdrawal from the European Union had not yet been set out as a matter of UK law. Rather, the date of exit of the UK was only set out as a matter of EU law as per the terms of Article 50(3) TEU, that is the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or two years from the date of Article 50 notification itself.

As is well known, the European Court of Justice does not entertain national courts submitting hypothetical questions concerning EU law (see, for instance, Foglia v Novello). The preliminary ruling procedure is a practical cooperative link (for example, Case C‑470/12 Pohotovost) between the national courts of the member States and the Court of Justice of the EU, designed to help the national courts decide cases in which the interpretation of EU law is integral to the resolution of the dispute before the national court. (In the Scottish context, see the case of Scotch Whisky Association v Lord Advocate, discussed here) Having reviewed the authorities in this matter, Lord Boyd declared that the case was a hypothetical one which did not need to be answered in order for him to give judgment. He also stated that this position was synonymous with the position adopted by the Scottish courts as to hypothetical cases before them (for example, see Macnaughton v Macnaughton Trustees 1954 S.C. 312 as discussed by Lord Boyd at para. 48).

The petitioners, in their case, also objected to the stated position of UK Ministers that outlines that Article 50 TEU is not unilaterally revocable. Indeed, in the earlier seminal constitutional case of Miller,  the question of unilateral revocability of Article 50 TEU was assumed by both parties to be answered in the negative (para 10 of that judgment). Lord Boyd refused to entertain an in-depth discussion as to the legal appropriateness of the stated position of UK Ministers on the revocability of Article 50 TEU on the basis that were he to do so, this would be a usurpation of Parliamentary privilege and contrary to Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 (paras 54-58 of his judgment). 

The pursuers then immediately appealed to the Inner House of the Court of Session, where their reclaiming motion was successful. The judgment of the Inner House was delivered on the 21st of September 2018. The Inner House found for the Reclaimers on a number of grounds. Lord Carloway, the Lord President, dismissed the UK Government's claim that the judicial review action was not competent because the order sought was not practical. On the contrary, Lord Carloway considered that the issue was justiciable precisely because there was such controversy as to the appropriate way forward within the parliamentary process (paras 22-23 of the judgment). More significantly, the court also found that the case was no longer hypothetical since in between the date of the judgment by Lord Boyd and the present case, the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 had now passed onto the statute books and certain provisions of that Act had come into force.

In particular, section 13 of the Act – the “meaningful vote” section – provides that the UK Parliament will be faced with a binary choice after a withdrawal agreement has been provisionally agreed between Her Majesty's Government and the European Union: Parliament must either approve the terms of the withdrawal agreement and accompanying text on the future framework for UK-EU relations or not approve. In the event that approval has not been forthcoming, the Government must inform the Parliament of how it intends to proceed within 21 days of the decision not to approve. Further, in the period up to the 21st of January 2019, if the Government again considers that no deal can be agreed then Parliament must be told of how the Government intends to proceed and again after the 21st of January 2019, the Government must inform Parliament of how it intends to proceed.

In all of these scenarios, there is a presupposition that both the Brexit clock inexorably continues to countdown to the 29th of March 2019 and that the choice for the UK Parliament is stark: Deal or No Deal. The Scottish politicians at the heart of this case contended that there is an alternative to this dystopian vision: The UK population can be given a People's Vote on the terms of the deal, including an option to Remain in the EU. However, this option will only be realisable if the UK's automatic exit from the EU on the 29th of March 2019 can be postponed and the only ways to disapply the automatic departure of the UK is by the UK either securing the agreement of the 27 other Member States to extend the Article 50 TEU time period or by unilateral rescission of the Article 50 TEU notification.  If neither of these options can be secured, then clearly, given that it is November 2018, there will be insufficient time to organise the necessary preparations for what would be in effect a second referendum on UK membership of the EU.

In the reclaiming motion, the Scottish judges approved the text of the question that they wished to send to the CJEU (see the Appendix to the judgment). The question is thus:

“Where, in accordance with Article 50 of the TEU, a Member State has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, does EU law permit that notice to be revoked unilaterally by the notifying Member State; and, if so, subject to what conditions and with what effect relative to the Member State remaining within the EU.”

Given that time is of the utmost essence in this case, the Scottish court expressly requested use of the expedited procedure (see Article 105 of the Rules of Procedure of the CJEU) before the Luxembourg court. At present, the average time taken for the CJEU to deliver a ruling under the Article 267 TFEU procedure is 15.7 months (page 114 of the 2017 Annual Report of the CJEU) . Such a timeframe would, ironically, render the judgment academic since the UK is heading towards Brexit in just over four months.  However, even with the expedited procedure, the Court will in all likelihood take between 3 and 5 months to render a judgment. Even this timeframe is problematic given that, at the time of writing, the UK and the EU have agreed a provisional withdrawal agreement on the 13th of November 2018.

In order for the issue of the revocability of Article 50 TEU to have practical import, UK politicians would need to know the answer to this question before they are asked to perform their constitutional task of participating in a meaningful vote on the terms of the withdrawal agreement. Given that there is an agreement in principle in existence between the UK and EU, it is likely that UK MPs will be asked to vote on the terms of the deal before the Christmas parliamentary recess, a mere six weeks away.

The window of opportunity for the CJEU is exceedingly tight. It received the Scottish reference on the 3rd of October 2018. Sixteen days later, the President of the CJEU confirmed that, given the constitutional seriousness of the case, the case would be expedited. It will be heard on the 27th of November 2018.

The UK Government has formally objected to this preliminary ruling request on a number of fronts. Firstly, the UK Government has published a policy paper to the effect that the question from the Scottish court is still a hypothetical one and that the CJEU has overstepped its judicial role in effectively acquiescing in this subterfuge. These arguments can be dealt with cursorily. As a cooperative horizontal judicial process between national courts and the CJEU, it is for the national court alone to determine the appropriateness of sending an EU law question to the CJEU for adjudication. As such, it is a subjective task for the judges seised of the case before them to assess whether they require a resolution to an EU law question in order to enable them to make a decision (See for example, Case 126/80 Salonia).  Secondly, if that is the case, then the answer from the CJEU is not merely an advisory one, rather it is a sine qua non of the national judges preforming their constructive and practical constitutional role.

The UK Government's second approach to taking exception to this Scottish court reference was to challenge the process of requesting assistance from the CJEU itself. The Advocate General for Scotland alleged that the proper course for this issue should have been for the Court of Session to have appealed the case up to the UK's Supreme Court for adjudication rather than sending the case to Luxembourg. The Inner House of the Court of Session, on the 8th of November 2018 refused leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The UK Government has not given up and has more recently submitted legal papers to try to get the Supreme Court to order cancellation of the reference request from the Court of Session. The Supreme Court has confirmed receipt of these legal papers and has assigned the case to Lady Hale, Lord Reed and Lord Hodge. It is to be expected that a ruling will be forthcoming from the Supreme Court given the Supreme Court's statement itself that it is aware of the urgency of the matter and the fact that the CJEU will hear the Wightman case on the 27th of November 2018.

Regardless of the relative merits or demerits of such an approach by the UK Government, these legal actions evidence a worryingly poor grasp of EU law principles. It is a well-established doctrine of EU law that the Article 267 TFEU Preliminary Ruling Procedure is not an appeal mechanism and as such national courts are free to submit requests to the Luxembourg court, free of any interference from higher national courts (See for example Cases 36 and 71/80 Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association v Ireland ECLI:EU:C:1981:62 and Case 338/85 Fratelli Pardini SpA v Ministero del Commercio con l'Estero ECLI:EU:C:1988:194).

Superior courts of the Member States are of course free to issue guidelines to the lower courts on when references should be sent to the CJEU (See for example the dicta of Sir Thomas Bingham MR in R. v International Stock Exchange of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland Ltd Ex p. Else (1982) Ltd [1993] QB 534 and the case of Emerald Supplies Limited & Others v British Airways Plc [2017] EWHC 2420 (Ch)), and the CJEU itself issues guidelines on how to refer EU law questions to it, however, these guidelines cannot fetter the wide discretion afforded to national courts to make their own decision on the appropriateness of an Article 267 TFEU reference.  The lack of knowledge of basic underpinnings of EU law at the heart of the UK Government is either negligence writ large or an unashamed attempt to circumvent well established judicial lines of communication between national courts and the CJEU. Either way, it diminishes the reputation of UK Plc. and conversely enhances the standing and reputation of the Scottish courts and politicians.

Nevertheless, inexorably the Brexit clock lurches forward and it remains to be seen whether Scotland can Scotch Brexit for the evident utility of the entire United Kingdom.

*Update (23 Nov 2018): on 20 November 2018 the UK Supreme Court refused to give leave to appeal against the decision to refer, on the grounds that the Court of Session judgment was not final. The CJEU will therefore hold a hearing in this case as planned on 27 November. Also, you can find the full text of the written legal arguments of Mr Wightman and others before the CJEU here. 

Barnard & Peers: chapter 27

Photo credit: Scotcourts.gov.uk

CJEU case law on EU citizenship: normatively consistent? Unlikely! - A response to Davies’ ‘Has the Court changed, or have the cases?’

Alexander Hoogenboom, PhD, MSc. LL.M. Senior Policy Officer at the Dutch Healthcare Authority and associate researcher at the Institute for Transnational and Euregional cross border cooperation and Mobility, Faculty of law, Maastricht University. The position taken in this paper solely reflects the views of the author.

Introduction

Recent case law of the Court of Justice on EU citizens’ access to benefits has been seen by some as a restrictive turn compared to prior case law, in response to a rise in populism. However, the article by Davies in a recent special issue of the Journal of European Public Policy is to be commended for its original take on this alleged ‘turn to restrictiveness’. The goal of his article is, as I see it, questioning whether the Court has indeed recently become stricter (in the sense of more State-friendly, less Union citizen-friendly) in response to the populist turn in the European political landscape. In that vein, Davies submits, contrary to what he sees is the main thrust in the scholarship, that the court has been ‘normatively consistent’ (see also this research paper he authored) and that the perceived difference in recent litigation outcomes from the golden years of Union citizenship are due to the litigants being less ‘deserving’ of access to benefits provided by the host Member State: ‘what goes in will provide an overwhelmingly plausible explanation of the outcomes on its own’.

This argument is supported by relying on a methodology for measuring the ‘deservedness’ of the litigants based on a set of indicators: the ‘good behaviour’ of the applicant, the possibility for exceptional harm should the benefit be denied, the possible cost to society resulting from the grant of a benefit (e.g. because it is long-term or applies to a large category of persons), whether granting the benefit would mandate a particular positive outcome and whether the State was somehow at fault for the specific conundrum that the litigant finds him or herself in.  The more ‘deserving’ (high contribution to society, low cost), the greater the likelihood of a litigant-positive result.

Applying these criteria to a selection of case law, Davies proceeds to show that indeed, the Dano’s (never worked, never integrated, lacked resources for self-support) of the world seem to be less deserving of benefits than the Sala’s (long-term legal resident, child benefit denied due to a technicality by an inconsistent state). (On the Dano case – the first judgment showing the perceived turn toward a stricter approach – see the discussion here).

There are, however, a few issues one could take with this approach. In part, it is questionable whether the facts as available to scholars of EU law decisions allow one to accurately apply the proposed test – especially given that the publication of the Reports for the Hearing was abolished since 2012 (see also para 119 of the AG opinion in Breyer). This is exacerbated, as Davies admits, by the fact that a negative outcome throws its shadow forwards: one then tends to present the facts in such a way as to support the later conclusion.

In part, it is questionable whether deservedness is objectively verifiable: after all, one could also argue that the rise of populism or say an economic crisis – the ‘times we live in’ – simply provide a different kind of lens through which to view the migratory Union citizen. The same fresh-faced youth enrolling in higher education in a Member State different from the one of his nationality can be cast as a self-improving, future productive member of that society (compare to Gravier, para 24) or as a welfare-abusing, locust-like creature eating his or her fill and subsequently returning from whence he or she came (see the main arguments by Belgium and Austria in the the judgment in Bressol).

However, the main challenge I would like to level is that the methodology suggested is applied to an incomplete ‘data set’ (the cases), in part due to selection bias (the focus in the article on the cases ‘most discussed’).

Grzelczyk by another name: The curious case of Förster

The case of Grzelczyk is among those used by Davies to support his thesis: his particular circumstances ‘paint a sympathetic picture’. A hard-working young Frenchman, resident in Belgium for some time and whose claim to financial support finish his last few months of study would seem altogether reasonable. Indeed, the Court, while leaving it to the national court to make the final decision, seemed to suggest he should be so entitled.

Nonetheless, the Court was not so generous in Förster. Jacqueline Förster was a German national who grew up in a town not far from the Dutch border. She moved to and resided in the Netherlands from March 2000 onwards – partly to be with her Dutch boyfriend. There, she enrolled into a teacher training programme and later in a course on educational theory at the Hogeschool van Amsterdam. In the period 2000-2002 she undertook various part-time jobs, until she engaged in full-time paid practical training at a Dutch school providing secondary education for children with special needs (October 2002 – June 2003). After her practical training she did not engage in gainful employment until July 2004. She graduated from her course that summer.

At stake was the intermezzo period: the Dutch Student Benefit Authority (then called IB-Groep) assessed in 2005 that she had not been eligible for study maintenance assistance in the second half of 2003 and ordered her to repay the amounts received.

It would seem to me that Ms. Förster ticked practically the same as mr. Grzelczyk. Measuring her ‘deservedness’ according to the matrix suggested by Davies we find:

-       Good behaviour: self-support initially (three years), enrolled in studies and contributing to Dutch society even during her studies in her practical training period. Advocate-General Mazàk moreover made the explicit point that she did not seem to have moved with the goal of claiming benefits.

-       Exceptional harm: Although the withdrawal of the benefit was retroactive, when assessing her right to access the benefit as matters stood in 2003 one could plausibly maintain that, as with Grzelczyk, non-access to the benefit would have made the completion of the degree much more difficult.

-       The support requested covered only a limited time: at issue was a six-month period only.

-       Limited cost of the support: As with Grzelczyk, this aspect is hard to estimate.

-       Positive outcomes: the completion of the degree would enable her to contribute to Dutch society and economy as a teacher.

-       State at fault: One could make the argument that given the fact that they had initially granted her the benefit and only much later (some one and a half years) took the final decision to recover the amount, should count against the Dutch state.

Finally, in addition to these elements from Davies’ deservedness matrix, the applicant had a relationship with a Dutch national and given her work, presumably, spoke fluent Dutch – both elements that the Court in other cases has found relevant when assessing eligibility to benefits (see Prinz and Seeberger, for instance).

All in all, one would assume, from the methodology applied that this applicant should be successful, or that should have led to a ‘discretionary-result-with-a-hint-in-favour-of-the applicant’. Yet, she categorically lost her case, notwithstanding the suggestion by the Advocate-General to consider the circumstances of the case along the lines suggested above. Yes, the conclusion was (partly) mandated by the EU citizens’ Directive 2004/38, but the Court certainly did not ‘bend over backwards to find exceptions to [this] restriction’ as his matrix would predict.

The big turnaround: Commission v Austria and Commission v the Netherlands

The cases of Commission v Austria and Commission v the Netherlands are perhaps even more glaring. The issue concerned a travel benefit aimed at students attending higher education. In the Austrian case, decided in 2012, Austria argued that it could refuse access to the benefit where the Union citizen in question had not yet obtained a right to permanent residence (a five-year prior residence requirement in practice). In contrast, the Court found that all persons enrolled in higher education should have automatic access.

The case is somewhat hard to fit into the matrix, but intuitively one could argue that the Court was not swayed by the hypothetical good behaviour of potential beneficiaries (no prior residence requirements, no integration), nor was the benefit for a limited time (it could last the entire study period), all persons enrolled in higher education persons were eligible (no ‘limited costs’) and it is hard to imagine an ‘exceptional harm’ had the benefit been denied to the hypothetical applicant. Notwithstanding this apparent lack of deservedness, however, a positive outcome for the hypothetical beneficiaries.

In 2016, in Commission v the Netherlands, the Court reached the opposite conclusion. The benefit at issue was in all respects the same as at stake in Commission v Austria (Table taken from A. Hoogenboom, Balancing Student Mobility Rights and National Higher Education Autonomy in the European Union (BRILL, 2017)):

	Austria	The Netherlands
Nature of the benefit	Fee reduction for the use of public transport (grant)	Free use of public transport on some days of the week; reduced fees on the other days (conditional grant)
Apparent purpose	To facilitate access to education	To facilitate access to education
Provision	Commercial public transport operators	Commercial public transport operators
Financing	The individual governments of several Länder	Central Dutch government
Recipient	Student	Student
Eligibility	Enrolment higher education Parents in receipt of Austrian family allowances	Enrolment in higher education. Student in receipt of Dutch studiefinanciering

Here the Court decided that the Netherlands could restrict the benefit along the terms suggested by Austria in the earlier case. It stretched the limits of consistency by trying to distinguish the latter case with a bizarre reference to the difference in national classification of the benefit, despite it being settled case law that such classifications are irrelevant - a point the Court itself made in Commission v Austria.

So here we initially have a judgment against the State and in favour of the Union citizen, whereas the matrix would likely predict a judgment in favour of the State. Four years later the Court came, on largely the same facts, to the opposite conclusion. This should not be seen as a (late) vindication of the matrix however, since the Court formally distinguished the latter case from the former, meaning that both cases continue to be good law.

Conclusion

Whereas the line of inquiry presented in Davies’ paper is an interesting one, it cannot account adequately account for the existence of Förster and the Commission v Austria/Netherlands saga. Apparently deserving applicants get rejected, and the same benefit with a similar hypothetical user base gets a different legal treatment in the space of a few years. Two possible explanations suggest themselves:

-       The Court is not consistent. This would mean that Davies’ hypothesis is disproven.

-       The matrix presented, by which the court supposedly measures deservedness, is flawed. This goes to the methodology used and means that we simply haven’t found calculus that the Court uses.

It would seem to me that the existence of both Commission v Austria and Commission v the Netherlands as ‘good law’ seems to hint at the former. In any case, however, to argue that the Court of Justice is normatively consistent, on the basis of the analysis carried out by Davies, is a bridge too far.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 13

Photo credit: i newspaper