The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that the UK can unilaterally revoke its withdrawal from the EU.

The court found that if the UK does decide to revoke Article 50 and stop the Brexit process it would remain in the EU as a member state and the revocation must be decided following “democratic process”.

In a statement, the ECJ said: “In today’s judgment, the full court has ruled that, when a member state has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, as the UK has done, that member state is free to revoke unilaterally that notification.

“That possibility exists for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between the EU and that member state has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period from the date of the notification of the intention to withdraw from the EU, and any possible extension, has not expired.”

It added: “The revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements. This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicated in writing to the European Council.”

The ECJ ruling comes ahead of tomorrow’s crunch vote on Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal.

The court ruled, contrary to the UK Government’s position, that the case is “relevant and not hypothetical”.

However, the UK Government has said its policy is not to revoke Article 50.

The case was brought by a cross-party group of Scottish politicians, Labour MEPs Catherine Stihler and David Martin, SNP MP Joanna Cherry and MEP Alyn Smith, and Green MSPs Andy Wightman and Ross Greer, together with lawyer Jolyon Maugham QC, director of the Good Law Project.

They argued that unilateral revocation is possible and believe it could pave the way for an alternative option to Brexit, such as a People’s Vote to enable remaining in the EU.

Lawyers representing the Council of the European Union and from the European Commission argued that revocation is possible but would require unanimous agreement from all member states.

The case was originally heard by the Court of Session in Edinburgh and two attempts by the UK Government to appeal against the referral to the European Court were rejected.

The case will be referred back to the Court of Session, where judges are expected to “frank” the decision and declare the European Court’s answer to be the law on the matter.

Mr Wightman hailed the “momentous” ruling, saying: “It is now clear that the UK can, if it chooses, change its mind and revert to our current EU membership arrangements.

“MPs now know that stopping Brexit altogether is an option open to them before the end of the Article 50 period.

“Parliament can now back a People’s Vote in the knowledge that a Remain outcome could be acted on unilaterally, should that be what people decide.”

Environment Secretary Michael Gove told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “We voted very clearly - 17.4 million people sent a clear message that we wanted to leave the European Union and that means also leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

“So, this case is all very well but it doesn’t alter either the referendum vote or the clear intention of the Government to make sure that we leave on March 29.”</s>Image copyright ECJ Image caption The case was heard by all 27 European judges last month

The European Court of Justice has ruled the UK can cancel Brexit without the permission of the other 27 EU members.

The ECJ judges ruled this could be done without altering the terms of Britain's membership.

A group of anti-Brexit politicians argued the UK should be able to unilaterally halt Brexit, but they were opposed by the government and EU.

The decision came as Theresa May announced a Commons vote on whether to approve her deal would be postponed.

MPs had been widely expected on Tuesday to reject the EU withdrawal agreement negotiated by Mrs May.

But she pre-empted their decision, saying the vote would be deferred to a later date so she could seek "further assurances" from EU leaders about the application of the Irish border backstop.

In a subsequent statement to MPs, Brexit Secretary Steve Barclay said the government noted the ECJ ruling but insisted "our policy has not changed".

He said the UK would be leaving the EU on 29 March 2019, under the terms of the EU's Article 50 process, and had "absolutely no intention" of overturning the 2016 Brexit vote.

"The government's firm and long held policy is that we will not revoke the Article 50 notice," he said.

What was the court case about?

The case was brought by a cross-party group of Scottish politicians and the Good Law Project who wanted to know whether the UK could revoke the decision to leave the EU without getting approval from the other member states.

They believed that if the ruling went in their favour, it could pave the way for an alternative option to Brexit, such as another referendum.

Image caption A group of politicians brought the case including (from top left) Catherine Stihler MEP; Joanna Cherry MP; David Martin MEP; (from bottom left) Alyn Smith MEP; Ross Greer MSP and Andy Wightman MSP

Both the UK government and the EU had been against it going to the ECJ.

The EU warned that it would set a dangerous precedent by encouraging other countries to announce they were leaving in an attempt to secure better membership terms, before cancelling their withdrawal.

The UK government's lawyers also argued that the case was purely hypothetical as "the UK does not intend to revoke its notification" and those politicians behind it wanted to use the case as "political ammunition to be used in, and to pressure, the UK Parliament".

What does the ruling say?

The ECJ ruled that the UK can unilaterally revoke its withdrawal from the EU, broadly following the non-binding opinion given last week by a senior ECJ official - the advocate general.

The statement from the court said the ability for a member state to change its mind after telling the EU it wanted to leave would last as long as a withdrawal agreement had not been entered into, or for the two-year period after it had notified the bloc it was leaving.

If that two-year period gets extended, then a member state could change its mind during that extra time too.

The court said the UK would be able to stay on the same terms it has now, so it would not be forced to join the euro or the Schengen area - where there are no passport controls between countries.

But the decision to stay must "follow a democratic process".

The member state would then have to write to the EU to notify them of the "unequivocal and unconditional" decision.

The ECJ said it made the ruling to "clarify the options open to MPs" ahead of voting on Mrs May's deal.

How have campaigners reacted?

The politicians involved hope the victory will increase the chances of Brexit being called off completely, potentially through another referendum.

Scottish Green MSP Ross Greer - one of the politicians who launched the case - said: "This is a massive moment at the start of a vital week, pointing to a clear way out of the Brexit mess."

And the SNP's Alyn Smith, who was also involved in the case, said: "A bright light has switched on above an exit sign."

Jolyon Maugham QC, director of the Good Law Project which took the case to the court, said that the ruling was "arguably the most important case in modern domestic legal history".

"It is up to MPs to remember what they came into politics for and find the moral courage to put the country's interests before private ambition," he added.

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon - who backed Remain - said the ruling meant it was "now open to the House of Commons" to extend Article 50 to allow time for another vote.

And Lib Dem Brexit spokesman Tom Brake tweeted that it was the "best news possible" and said it was now "full steam ahead for a People's Vote".

What about their critics?

Environment Secretary Michael Gove, a prominent Brexiteer, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme those calling for a second vote were "people who never accepted that first vote, who didn't accept that democratic mandate and who want to overturn it".

"We don't want to stay in the EU. We voted very clearly, 17.4 million people sent a clear message that we want to leave the European Union, and that means also leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice," he added.

"So, this case is all very well, but it doesn't alter the referendum vote or the clear intention of the government to make sure that we leave on 29 March."

Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt told the BBC people would be "shocked and very angry" if any government delayed leaving the EU and it was "certainly not the intention of the government".

Brexiteer Tory Jacob Rees-Mogg hailed the decision as the right one, but told LBC radio: "I think this government would find it very difficult to remain the government if it went away from what it said in its manifesto and the referendum result."

What does the EU say?

A spokeswoman for the European Commission said it would "take note" of the judgement, but there was an "agreement on the table".

"As President [Jean-Claude] Juncker said, this deal is the best and only deal possible. We will not renegotiate," he said.

"Our position has therefore not changed and as far as we are concerned the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union on the 29 March 2019."

How does the ruling affect the meaningful vote?

BBC Brussels correspondent Adam Fleming said the ruling made staying in the EU "a real, viable option" and that may "sway a few MPs" in the way they vote.

But he said "a lot would have to change in British politics" to see the UK remain in the EU, with Mrs May and the government having to change its mind to make it a "political reality".</s>The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that the UK can unilaterally revoke its withdrawal from the EU.

The court found that if the UK does decide to revoke Article 50 and stop the Brexit process it would remain in the EU as a member state and the revocation must be decided following "democratic process".

In a statement, the ECJ said: "In today's judgment, the full court has ruled that, when a member state has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, as the UK has done, that member state is free to revoke unilaterally that notification.

"That possibility exists for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between the EU and that member state has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period from the date of the notification of the intention to withdraw from the EU, and any possible extension, has not expired."

It added: "The revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements. This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicated in writing to the European Council."

The ECJ ruling comes ahead of Tuesday's crunch vote on Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit deal.

The court ruled, contrary to the UK Government's position, that the case is "relevant and not hypothetical".

However, the UK Government has said its policy is not to revoke Article 50.

The case was brought by a cross-party group of Scottish politicians, Labour MEPs Catherine Stihler and David Martin, SNP MP Joanna Cherry and MEP Alyn Smith, and Green MSPs Andy Wightman and Ross Greer, together with lawyer Jolyon Maugham QC, director of the Good Law Project.

They argued that unilateral revocation is possible and believe it could pave the way for an alternative option to Brexit, such as a People's Vote to enable remaining in the EU.

Lawyers representing the Council of the European Union and from the European Commission argued that revocation is possible but would require unanimous agreement from all member states.

The case was originally heard by the Court of Session in Edinburgh and two attempts by the UK Government to appeal against the referral to the European Court were rejected.

The case will be referred back to the Court of Session, where judges are expected to "frank" the decision and declare the European Court's answer to be the law on the matter.</s>The UK can stop Brexit by unilaterally revoking its withdrawal from the EU, the European Court of Justice has ruled.

The EU's top court in Luxembourg has been considering the question whether the United Kingdom can decide not to proceed with leaving.

Lawyers in the EU argued that the UK should require a vote of other member states, while the government in Britain said the court should not rule on the question.

The advocate general of the court Manuel Campos Sánchez-Bordona gave his opinion last week which is not often overturned by the judges.

A spokeswoman for the court said: "In today's judgment, the Full Court has ruled that, when a Member State has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, as the UK has done, that Member State is free to revoke unilaterally that notification.

"That possibility exists for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between the EU and that Member State has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period from the date of the notification of the intention to withdraw from the EU, and any possible extension, has not expired."

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon responded to the ruling on Twitter by saying: "So an extension of Article 50 to allow time for another vote, followed by revocation of Article 50 if the outcome is Remain seems to be an option that is now open to the House of Commons. "</s>EU judges delivered a boost for Remainer rebels today by ruling that Britain can unilaterally cancel Brexit.

The European Court of Justice decided that Article 50 can be withdrawn by the UK without permission from other member states.

Britain would keep its current terms of membership if it quit the process - meaning keeping the rebate, the opt out from the Euro and exemptions from the Schengen passport-free zone.

The ruling by the 27 EU judges will fuel tensions ahead of the crunch vote on Theresa May's Brexit deal tomorrow.

It will encourage hopes from pro-EU MPs that a second referendum can be held to stop the UK from leaving the bloc altogether.

The case to decide whether an EU member state such as the UK can decide on its own to revoke the Article 50 withdrawal process was brought by a cross-party group of Scottish politicians.

They are Labour MEPs Catherine Stihler and David Martin, Joanna Cherry MP and Alyn Smith MEP of the SNP, and Green MSPs Andy Wightman and Ross Greer, together with lawyer Jolyon Maugham QC, director of the Good Law Project.

Ms Cherry said: 'I'm delighted that we now know definitively that there is an option to stay in the EU.

'The UK government has ignored Scotland's vote to remain and all compromises suggested by the Scottish Government.

'They also fought us every inch of the way in this case, so it's a particularly sweet irony that Scottish parliamentarians and the Scottish courts have provided this lifeline to the UK parliament at this moment of crisis.'

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon tweeted: 'Important judgment from ECJ - Article 50 can be unilaterally revoked by UK.'

She added: 'So an extension of Article 50 to allow time for another vote, followed by revocation of Article 50 if the outcome is Remain seems to be an option that is now open to the House of Commons.'

People's Vote campaigner Dame Margaret Beckett said: 'This is confirmation that it is still up to us to decide whether we want to keep the existing deal we've got in the EU rather than accept a bad deal negotiated by the Government.

'What has happened in the last week is that any prospect of no deal has been removed by amendments allowing Parliament to take control, while we now all know beyond any doubt that we can stay in the EU - it's not too late.'

Liberal Democrat Tom Brake said: 'The ECJ has made clear that the UK can stop Brexit unilaterally. The Government can therefore prevent a chaotic no-deal.

'For the sake of people's livelihoods, the Prime Minister must end the uncertainty and rule out a no-deal.'

Best for Britain chief Eloise Todd said the court ruling meant 'our future is in our hands'.

She said: 'As the Prime Minister tries every desperate measure to get her deal through the Parliament, MPs need to recognise that when her deal is defeated they should move as quickly as possible to give the people of this country the final say on whether to stay in or leave the EU.'

The winners argued in court that unilateral revocation was possible. They believe it could pave the way for an alternative option to Brexit, such as a People's Vote to enable remaining in the EU.

However, legal representatives for the UK Government claimed the case is inadmissible as it deals with a hypothetical situation, since the Government's policy is not to revoke Article 50.

Lawyers representing the Council of the European Union and from the European Commission meanwhile argued that revocation is possible but would require unanimous agreement from all member states.

Last week the court's Advocate General rejected the idea that approval is needed from the European Council.

Instead, Manuel Campos Sanchez-Bordona said Article 50 allows the 'unilateral revocation of the notification of the intention to withdraw from the EU, until such time as the Withdrawal Agreement is formally concluded'.

The case was originally heard by the Court of Session in Edinburgh and two attempts by the UK Government to appeal against the referral to the European court were rejected.

Once the ECJ has delivered its ruling the case will be referred back to the Court of Session, where judges are expected to 'frank' the decision and declare the European Court's answer to be the law on the matter.</s>EU Court Rules That The UK Can Unilaterally End Brexit

The European Court of Justice has ruled that that member states can withdraw unilaterally from leaving the EU while they are still in the negotiating period. This confirms that the UK can revoke its Article 50 notice without having to consult the rest of the EU.</s>The European Court of Justice has confirmed, today December 10, that the UK can revoke Article 50 and put a stop, at least temporarily, to the Brexit process.

This leaves the door open for a possible second referendum on Britain’s withdrawal form the European Union, and even the abandonment of Brexit altogether.

The decision comes after last week’s legal opinion, by the court’s advocate general, that Britain did not need to consult the other EU member states before deciding to withdraw Article 50.

The court’s opinion was summarised as: “The United Kingdom is free to revoke unilaterally the notification of its intention to withdraw from the EU.”

The decision comes after a case was taken by a group of anti-Brexit Scottish politicians.

Article 50 was originally triggered in March 2017, which began a two-year period for discussion and negotiation that was due to come to an end in March of next year, at which point, the UK is due to officially leave the EU.

But the ruling by the Court of Justice now means that Article 50 can be revoked at the behest of the British government, and the March deadline ignored.

The agreement, if accepted, would keep the UK in a similar customs and trading relationship as exists currently – an outcome that’s looking increasingly unlikely.

It’s thought the May will not have the necessary support to the get the agreement passed, with opposition coming from opposition parties, coalition partners and her own backbenchers.

In particular, the Northern Irish backstop, and the customs and trading arrangements proposed in the agreement, are thorns in the side for hard-line Brexiteers in her own party, and the Democratic Unionist Party, with whom she is in coalition.</s>The EU’s top court has ruled the UK can revoke Article 50 and halt Brexit without the permission of other member states.

A judgement by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on Monday gives the UK the right to unilaterally withdraw its notification to leave the EU.

Judges ruled revoking Article 50 is possible until the UK's withdrawal agreement enters into force or - if no deal is reached between London and Brussels - until the end of the two-year Article 50 negotiating period.

The UK could even decide to reverse Brexit within "any possible extension" to the Article 50 period, the court said.

In addition, if Article 50 is revoked, the UK could remain in the EU under the current terms of its membership, judges ruled.

This would allow the UK to keep its rebate on EU budget contributions, continue to opt-out of justice and home affairs legislation, and remain outside of the passport-free Schengen area and the euro single currency.

Withdrawing the Article 50 notification, made by Prime Minister Theresa May in March 2017, must be done in accordance with the UK's "national constitutional requirements" and should be "unequivocal and unconditional".

The court's ruling noted this would represent "a sovereign decision to retain its status as a member state of the EU", while judges highlighted a principle that a member state cannot be forced to leave the EU against its will.

The judgement by the Luxembourg court comes on the eve of a House of Commons vote on Mrs May's Brexit deal, which is expected to be roundly rejected by MPs.

There are suggestions the government could yet pull the vote if she remains on course for a heavy defeat.

Monday's ruling follows an opinion delivered last week by the ECJ's advocate general Campos Sanchez-Bordona, who told the court it should allow the UK to withdraw its notice of intent to leave the bloc.

The case, which the UK government tried to prevent, was brought by a cross-party group of Scottish politicians and was heard by judges last month.

The group included SNP MP Joanna Cherry, SNP MEP Alyn Smith, Labour MEPs David Martin and Catherine Stihler, Green MSPs Andy Wightman and Ross Greer, and barrister Jolyon Maugham.

Liberal Democrat Brexit spokesperson Tom Brake and Labour MP Chris Leslie were listed as additional parties in court documents.

Mr Leslie, who is campaigning for a second EU referendum, described Monday's ruling as a "massive, game-changing moment".

He told Sky News: "If the British people, potentially through a people's vote, want to reverse out of this process, they now have that right.

"And that, I think, will electrify the debate, certainly in parliament.

"This notion that the prime minister has put up which somehow is an ultimatum, you have to take her deal or there's no deal, that is no longer the case.

"It is now legally certain that, if the British people want, they can change their minds."

However, Environment Secretary Michael Gove - a leading figure in the Brexit campaign - stressed the ruling would not prevent the UK leaving the EU next year.

"We don't want to stay in the EU. We voted very clearly - 17.4million people sent a clear message that we want to leave the EU and that means also leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"So, this case is all very well but it doesn't alter either the referendum vote or the clear intention of the government to make sure that we leave on 29 March.

"And the most effective way of leaving is to support the deal the prime minister has proposed."</s>Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union can be divided into two parts. The first recognises the right of a member state to withdraw from the European Union. The second establishes the procedure that the withdrawing member state and the EU institutions have to follow to manage that withdrawal.

Article 50 says that the member state has to notify the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union. However it does not say whether, once such notification has been made, such intention may be revoked and membership retained.

This was the issue under consideration in a case brought before the European Court of Justice. The court has now ruled that a withdrawing member state may revoke its intention to withdraw from the EU unilaterally.

The key word here is “unilaterally”. In this context, it means that the revocation decision is not subject to the unanimous consent of the European Council, the European institution representing the member states.

However, it’s important to note that the court added that the decision to revoke Article 50 must be “unequivocal and unconditional”. This means that the member state has to make it clear that it wishes to maintain its EU membership. This is not about extending the Article 50 process to extend the Brexit transition period beyond March 2019. That would still require agreement from the EU member states. Rather, a notification revoking Article 50 means not leaving the EU at all. In other words, it would stop Brexit.

Of equal importance is timing. The court said a member state can only revoke Article 50 while its withdrawal agreement with the EU, which sets outs the terms of departure, has not yet entered into force. If the withdrawal agreement has not been concluded, revocation may take place during the two-year period that starts when Article 50 is triggered, or even beyond the two-year period if the remaining member states decide to grant such an extension.

In Brexit terms, this means that the UK can revoke Article 50 unilaterally before its agreement enters into force or, if it does not enter in force, until March 29 2019. It can also revoke it after that date if the European Council agrees to extend the transition period of Article 50 beyond 29 March 2019.

The ECJ case originally started in a Scottish court, which asked the Court of Justice to clarify the issue of revocation of the intention to withdraw from the EU. Given the misrepresentation given by Brexit supporters about the Court of Justice and their sudden hostility towards it, it’s important to remember that the Court of Justice interprets and applies EU law. It does not, nor can it, interpret or apply national law. This has always been the case since its establishment in 1952.

This was a challenging case because the the UK was the first country to ever trigger Article 50, so there was no legal precedent to rely on when making a decision. If the text of the law is silent, should it be implied that a particular conduct is allowed because it is not expressly prohibited, or should it be implied that it is not allowed because it is not expressly permitted?

In this typical interpretative dilemma, the court reasoned that if EU law recognises the sovereign choice of a member state to leave the EU, then revoking that intention should also be seen as a sovereign decision. It also noted that “given that a state cannot be forced to accede to the European Union against its will, neither can it be forced to withdraw from the European Union against its will”.

In this regard, the court noted that if a member state cannot unilaterally revoke its decision to leave the EU, then this would amount to allowing the expulsion of a member state. Indeed, the court noted that when drafting what eventually would become Article 50, a number of amendments to allow the EU to expel member states were rejected. This further supports the conclusion that a member state is entitled to reverse its decision unilaterally.

The ECJ ruling is not surprising. Legally speaking, it would have been much harder to justify the opposite conclusion. It is also in line with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which allows revocation of a decision to withdraw from an international treaty.

The immediate implication is that the EU member states are not allowed to interfere with the United Kingdom’s future course of action, for example by setting new conditions for allowing the UK to remain in the EU. However, like many domestic and international rulings, it has an internal political implication: it adds a further option to the current ones on the table. The pressure taken off from the EU is now entirely on the UK.

A revocation decision would run counter to the outcome of the UK referendum. It would be unpalatable, unattractive, and risky, but so are the other choices. By approving the withdrawal agreement, the UK becomes a rule-taker with no voice. By rejecting the withdrawal agreement, it faces serious and radical economic disruption. Either way, the ultimate decision must be made through the British political system. The ECJ ruling is another stark reminder of this enormous responsibility.</s>EU judges delivered a boost for Remainer rebels today by ruling that Britain can unilaterally cancel Brexit.

The European Court of Justice decided that Article 50 can be withdrawn by the UK without permission from other member states.

Britain would keep its current terms of membership if it quit the process - meaning keeping the rebate, the opt out from the Euro and exemptions from the Schengen passport-free zone.

The ruling will fuel tensions ahead of the crunch vote on Theresa May's Brexit deal tomorrow.

It will encourage hopes from pro-EU MPs that a second referendum can be held to stop the UK from leaving the bloc altogether.

The case to decide whether an EU member state such as the UK can decide on its own to revoke the Article 50 withdrawal process was brought by a cross-party group of Scottish politicians.

They are Labour MEPs Catherine Stihler and David Martin, Joanna Cherry MP and Alyn Smith MEP of the SNP, and Green MSPs Andy Wightman and Ross Greer, together with lawyer Jolyon Maugham QC, director of the Good Law Project.

Ms Cherry said: 'I'm delighted that we now know definitively that there is an option to stay in the EU.

'The UK government has ignored Scotland's vote to remain and all compromises suggested by the Scottish Government.

'They also fought us every inch of the way in this case, so it's a particularly sweet irony that Scottish parliamentarians and the Scottish courts have provided this lifeline to the UK parliament at this moment of crisis.'

Liberal Democrat Tom Brake said: 'The ECJ has made clear that the UK can stop Brexit unilaterally. The Government can therefore prevent a chaotic no-deal.

'For the sake of people's livelihoods, the Prime Minister must end the uncertainlty and rule out a no-deal.

'It is clear any Brexit will make people poorer and reduce the UK's standing in the world. MPs should not only vote down Theresa May's deal, but back a People's Vote with the option to remain in the EU.'

The winners argued in court that unilateral revocation was possible. They believe it could pave the way for an alternative option to Brexit, such as a People's Vote to enable remaining in the EU.

However, legal representatives for the UK Government claimed the case is inadmissible as it deals with a hypothetical situation, since the Government's policy is not to revoke Article 50.

Lawyers representing the Council of the European Union and from the European Commission meanwhile argued that revocation is possible but would require unanimous agreement from all member states.

Last week the court's Advocate General rejected the idea that approval is needed from the European Council.

Instead, Manuel Campos Sanchez-Bordona said Article 50 allows the 'unilateral revocation of the notification of the intention to withdraw from the EU, until such time as the Withdrawal Agreement is formally concluded'.

The case was originally heard by the Court of Session in Edinburgh and two attempts by the UK Government to appeal against the referral to the European court were rejected.

Once the ECJ has delivered its ruling the case will be referred back to the Court of Session, where judges are expected to 'frank' the decision and declare the European Court's answer to be the law on the matter.
The Court of Justice of the European Union rules that an EU member state's invocation of Article 50 TEU is unilaterally revokable.