Prorogation of Parliament: Conflicting judgments in England and Scotland

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

The A-Z of Scots Law: From Avizandum to the Zany Antics of Boris Johnson

The recent, zany antics of Prime Minister Boris Johnson are being subject to intense interrogation by the Scottish legal system. The case of Cherry has seen the decision to prorogue the UK Parliament declared unlawful and the Prime Minister’s reported defiance to refuse to comply with the specific terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.2) Act 2019 will be litigated upon in the Scottish courts next week. This new statute is designed to avoid a No-Deal Brexit on Halloween. It requires the Prime Minister to send a letter to the European Council requesting an extension to the Article 50 TEU negotiating period by the 19th of October 2019 if there is no deal in place (or no vote by parliament approving a no deal outcome) between the UK and EU by that date. 

These developments have exposed non-Scots lawyers and the general public in the UK to a whole new lexicon. In the Cherry case, they were treated to the terms ‘Avizandum’ and ‘stymie’ and in the prospective case forcing Boris Johnson to comply with the 2019 law, the general populace encountered the Latin term ‘nobile officium’.

The term ‘Avizandum’ is a Scots law term of art indicating that the court will take time to consider its judgment and deliver its reasoning at a later date. The word ‘stymie’ has been used in the case of Cherry to refer to the fact that proroguing Parliament will frustrate Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the work of the Executive while it is suspended. The etymology of ‘stymie’ is Scottish and refers to someone who can’t see very well and it was adopted as a golfing term to refer to a ball that prevents their opponent from having a clear shot at the hole. Thus, it is an apposite term for the actions of a Prime Minister attempting to deflect Parliament’s attention away from a No-Deal Brexit.

The ‘nobile officium’ is an ancient power of the supreme court of Scotland (the Court of Session) to offer an equitable remedy for pursuers when there is a perceived deficiency in the law.

This blog will discuss the significance of the unanimous decision of the Scottish judges in Cherry to declare the Prime Minister’s prorogation of Parliament unlawful, compare and contrast this with the English High Court’s decision to refuse to rule on the matter in Miller 2 and the potential ramifications of these cases for the Supreme Court hearing on Tuesday the 17th of September 2019. (For an overview of the prorogation case law with links, see here).

The original Cherry case (discussed here) was the first legal test of Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue Parliament. At first instance, Lord Doherty roundly rejected the petitioner's pleas, holding that the decision to prorogue was an exercise of prerogative power (ie non-statutory) by the executive (the Government) that was non-justiciable (ie not amenable to review by a court), since it involved matters of high policy and political judgment. Thus, such matters were best left to be resolved in the political arena, primarily by the Prime Minister being held accountable for his actions by his equals in Parliament and subsequently by the electorate at the ballot box.

South of the border, Gina Miller, Shami Chakrabarti and Sir John Major instigated a similar claim against prorogation in the English High Court. At this level, both courts were at one on this point: the decision of the Prime Minister to prorogue was a classic exercise of prerogative power that was non-justiciable, since it involved matters of high policy and political judgment (see the Miller justifications at paras. 38, 42 and 60, the dicta of Lord Doherty in Cherry 1 at paras. 25 and 26 and the Scottish case law of MacCormcick v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 390, Gibson v Lord Advocate 1975 SC 136 and Lord Gray’s Motion 2000 SC (HL) 46). In their view, there were no legal standards from which to judge the legitimacy of the decision to prorogue (para. 51). The justifications for such an approach are plentiful and eminent. The long line of judicial precedent confirming such an approach stretch from de Freitas v Benny ([1976] AC 239), R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Everett [1975] 1 QB 811 the GCHQ case through to A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 1 AC 68 (aka the Belmarsh case) and the case of Shergill v Khaira [2014] UKSC 33.  In the Belmarsh case, Lord Bingham famously declared that:

“The more purely political (in a broad or narrow sense) a question is, the more appropriate it will be for political resolution and the less likely it is to be an appropriate matter for judicial decision. The smaller, therefore, will be the potential role of the court. It is the function of political and not judicial bodies to resolve political questions.”

Further, as I discussed last week, the dissenting judges in Miller 1 offered a stark warning to judges willing to embark on evaluations of matters involving high policy. Lord Reed expressed the view that:

“It is important for courts to understand that the legalisation of political issues is not always constitutionally appropriate, and may be fraught with risk, not least for the judiciary.”

The English High Court heeded such warnings and tersely stated in the first paragraph of its judgment in Miller 2 that:

“It is not a matter for the courts.”

The non-justiciability argument appeared to have won the day north and south of the border. And further, to the west, beyond the Irish Sea, the High Court of Northern Ireland in Belfast decided not to rule on the prorogation issue at all, in a case brought by Raymond McCord.

Further, the English High Court also considered at the same time that, even if the contested order to prorogue had been reviewable, a number of legitimate and plausible reasons had been put forward by the Prime Minister that supplied sufficient reasoning for the prorogation (para. 51). Primarily, it is entirely normal and expected that a new Prime Minister would desire a Queen’s Speech in order to give legal effect to their policy priorities. Further, in the present instance, even with prorogation, there would still be time to debate and scrutinise Britain’s withdrawal from the EU; there would already be reduced Parliamentary time to scrutinize, given that the prorogation would fall in the middle of the traditional  party conference season when Parliament is recessed; and finally, the previous Parliamentary session had been one of the longest in living memory.

In the face of such insurmountable odds, it appeared that all was lost for the Remain Alliance. The activities of the Prime Minister were beyond legal reproach, even if not beyond political or ethical reproach. And yet...

The original decision of Lord Doherty in the Outer House of the Court of Session in Scotland was immediately appealed against. On Wednesday the 11th of September 2019, the three judges of the Inner House dropped their bombshell unanimous decision – the decision of the Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament was justiciable and upon subsequent forensic examination it had been found wanting.

The Scottish judges did not hold back, using rather forceful language to condemn the events laid before them. Lord Brodie found that the decision to prorogue was an ‘egregious case’ of improper behaviour (para. 91) falling well below the generally accepted standards of behaviour expected of public authorities and figures.

At first glance, the remarkable decision of the Scottish Supreme Court flies in the face of received legal orthodoxy. Proroguing Parliament is a classically political act, thus protected from legal challenge. So how do lawyers, north and south, square this circle?

The answer comes down to one of approach and the classification of the question that came before the courts in the three jurisdictions of the UK. As I discussed earlier, the question of the justiciability of royal prerogative powers is no longer a binary one, ever since the GCHQ case. Now, the test for justiciability rests on the nature of the prerogative power in question. The more legalistic in nature the power is, the easier it is for the courts to assume jurisdiction. Conversely, the more political or non-legal the power, the harder it is for the court to assume jurisdiction over that decision-making power. However, this sliding scale argument just outlined, does not help much in explaining the diametrically opposed judgments north and south of the border. Indeed, on this view, the English and Scottish courts should have been at one.

Legal clarification to this confusing situation may come, ironically some may say, from eminent Sassenach (used here in a non-pejorative sense) legal jurists, Professor Paul Craig and Professor Mark Elliott. Both Professor Craig and Elliott have cogently and eruditely explained the constitutional dilemmas borne out of Boris Johnson’s premiership. From their perspective, for the courts to absolve themselves from adjudicating upon a matter of such momentous proportions would be a gross dereliction of judicial duty (See Professor Craig’s view on this in his blog Prorogation: Three Assumptions of the 9th of September). The dangers to the UK constitution posed by the behaviour of Boris Johnson both necessitate and justify judicial involvement. This situation is such a singular affront to the democratic principles of the UK’s unwritten constitution that a judicial response is both right and necessary (See Professor Craig’s blog Prorogation: Constitutional Principle and Law, Fact and Causation, of the 31st of August).

To provide for no legal redress in this pivotal moment would create a legal vacuum and indirectly give succour and implicit legitimation to the decision of the Prime Minister (see the discussion of these matters by Alan Greene in his blog Miller 2, Non-justiciability and the Danger of Legal Black Holes, available here). For Professor Elliott, the sweeping, blanket refusal of the English High Court to entertain any possible review of the decision to prorogue is legally suspect on two main grounds. First, because the refusal to adjudicate goes against the liberalising tendency of the extant judicial precedence on non-justiciability, which is incrementally lessening the scope and reach of the non-justiciability barrier and, secondly, and in my opinion more forcefully, the judgment in Miller 2 misconstrued the legal question before it (see Professor Elliott’s blog Prorogation and justiciability: Some thoughts ahead of the Cherry/Miller (No. 2) case, available here).

Thus, the argument for intervention can be justified by looking at the questions before the UK courts from a slightly different perspective. The argument runs that the English High Court focussed, incorrectly, on the evaluation of the exercise of the discretionary power to prorogue. From this perspective, the English High Court fixated on the practical aspects of the decision to prorogue, asking itself questions about the justifications offered for the prorogation and the reasonableness of the length of time of the prorogation.  Therefore, the purpose of the judicial review appears to be one of substitution, that is the court is putting itself in the shoes of the Prime Minister and declaring whether it is reasonable for the Prime Minister to have asked for such a long period of prorogation. If that is so, then traditional legal orthodoxy kicks in: courts are not there to be a substitute for a bad decision maker, particularly when that decision is not made according to legal principles or considerations but rather, is a decision based on pure politics. Such decisions, rightly, cannot and should not be subject to supervision and substitution by the courts. The Inner House of the Court of Session chose another path for adjudication.

The Inner House, having reviewed the legal authorities, considered that the prerogative power to prorogue Parliament was justiciable (para. 31). The Court of Session approached the question from first principles of the UK constitution. The Court of Session asked a different question to that of the English High Court, namely does the legal power exist and if so, what are its boundaries? Questions about the scope of legal powers are classic judicial review questions that need resolution. Indeed, the fundamental grundnorm of the UK unwritten constitution is observance of the rule of law.

Lord Drummond Young, at para. 102, summed up this fundamental truth concisely when he said:

“The rule of law requires that any act of the executive, or any other public institution, must be liable to judicial scrutiny to ensure that it is within the scope of the legal power under which it is exercised.”

In applying this principle to the present case, the Scottish court was being asked if the exercise of the prerogative power to prorogue Parliament was being used for a purpose that was objectively outwith its scope (para. 104). This question could be answered by the Scottish court since the UK case-law evidenced a great deal of judicial flexibility in responding to these types of questions (see the case of Pham v Home Secretary [2015] 1 WLR 1591). In answer to this question, given the voluminous redacted information submitted to the court by Her Majesty’s Government, the answer must be yes: the Prime Minister had prorogued Parliament for an improper purpose, namely to stymie Parliamentary debate, oversight and scrutiny of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

Regardless of their view on the justiciability and merits or otherwise of the case, the seriousness of the case, according to the Scottish judges, absolutely required a robust judicial response in any case. The actions of the Prime Minister had been an egregious case where there had been a clear failure to comply with generally accepted standards of behaviour of a public authority (see para. 91). The exceptional seriousness of the case would require the court to act.

It can be argued that the Scottish judges were not engaged in usurping power from Parliament. On the contrary, the Scottish judges, rather than emasculating Parliament, were, by delivering judgment, empowering Parliament.

The finding of the Inner House means that the decision to prorogue Parliament was illegal and as such the Order in Council is of no legal effect, that is the decision is void ab initio. However, given the constitutional significance of the case and its brethren cases in Belfast and London, the Lord President declined to enforce the judgment at once, given that all these judgments were the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court of the UK. If the Supreme Court were to ultimately follow the dicta of the Inner House, then the judgment in Cherry 2 would be fully enforced and applied at that date.

The outcome of the conjoined appeals at the Supreme Court of the UK on Tuesday the 17th of September is far from certain. The Scottish judgment is a constitutional first: the first time a serving Prime Minister has been found guilty of acting illegally in relation to the proroguing of Parliament.

What is certain is that the 11 justices of the Supreme Court will once again make UK constitutional history after the hearing on Tuesday week.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 27

Photo credit: parliament.uk

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