## Facts

- After a 2016 referendum, the United Kingdom notified the European Council on March 29, 2017 of its intention to withdraw from the European Union under Article 50 TEU.
- A group of UK and EU parliamentarians and others filed judicial review proceedings in Scotland seeking clarification whether the Article 50 notification could be unilaterally revoked before withdrawal took effect.
- The national litigation focused on informing parliamentary decision-making ahead of a vote on the draft withdrawal agreement.
- The Scottish court referred a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) under Article 267 TFEU asking whether unilateral revocation was permitted and, if so, under what conditions and with what effect.
- The UK Government, and the Council and Commission, objected that the reference was inadmissible as hypothetical or political.
- The CJEU used an expedited procedure due to the approaching end of the Article 50 period.

## Issues

1. Whether the preliminary reference was admissible under Article 267 TFEU, or instead an impermissible hypothetical/advisory request.
2. Whether EU law permits a Member State to unilaterally revoke an Article 50(2) TEU withdrawal notification before withdrawal takes effect.
3. If unilateral revocation is permitted, what conditions apply and what is the legal effect on the Member State’s EU membership.

## Decision

- The CJEU held the reference admissible, applying a presumption that questions referred by national courts are relevant and refusing to answer only where lack of relevance is obvious.
- The CJEU held that an Article 50 notification may be revoked unilaterally by the notifying Member State.
- Revocation is valid only if it is:
  - notified in writing to the European Council;
  - made before either (i) the withdrawal agreement enters into force or (ii) the Article 50(3) period (including any extension) expires; and
  - unequivocal and unconditional, confirming continued EU membership on unchanged terms and terminating the withdrawal procedure.
- A valid revocation results in the Member State remaining an EU member on the same terms as before, with the withdrawal process ended.

## Legal Principles

- Preliminary references are generally admissible where the national court’s question concerns interpretation of EU law and is not plainly unrelated to the dispute before it.
- Article 50 TEU reflects a voluntary, constitutionally grounded choice by a Member State regarding EU membership; that choice may be reversed before withdrawal becomes effective.
- Unilateral revocation cannot be conditioned or used tactically; it must clearly and definitively communicate an intention to remain and must end the withdrawal procedure.
- The decision to revoke must comply with the Member State’s constitutional requirements, consistent with Article 50(1) TEU.

## Conclusion

The CJEU ruled that a Member State may unilaterally revoke its Article 50 withdrawal notification, provided the revocation is timely, written, and unequivocal and unconditional, with the effect that the Member State remains in the EU on unchanged terms and the withdrawal procedure terminates.


Wightman v. Sec’y of State for Exiting the Eur. Union, Case C-621/18 (C.J.E.U. 2018)