Search results

The UK after Brexit is the result of a cooperation between a group of leading academics from top institutions in the UK and beyond. It offers students, practitioners and scholars an authoritative, informative and thought-provoking series of analyses of some of the key challenges facing the UK legal system in and through the process of 'de-Europeanisation' - that is, in and through 'Brexit'. It provides discursive exploration of key issues and themes for reflection and debate within multiple areas of law, broadly divided into three main areas of interest: - constitutional concerns such as the relationship between Parliament and the Executive, the relevance of devolution, and the impact on the courts; - substantive topics including employment law, environmental law, financial services, intellectual property, and criminal cooperation; and - issues regarding the UK's external relations, for example its relations with the EU, membership of the World Trade Organization, ingredients for creating UK trade policy and bilateral investment policy, and international security (the UN, NATO and more). The structure of this work is specifically designed to offer the clearest presentation of these analyses and constitute a critical, comprehensive resource on the effects of de-Europeanisation on the UK legal system. These analyses will remain relevant over time - not only as the withdrawal process unfolds, but well into the future as the UK reorientates its legal system to new internal and external realities with contributions by Professor Catherine Barnard (University of Cambridge), Dr Aleksandra Cavoski (University of Birmingham), Professor Paul Craig (University of Oxford), Professor Marise Cremona (European University Institute), Professor Michael Dougan (University of Liverpool), Dr Michael Gordon (University of Liverpool), Professor Christian Henderson (University of Sussex), Dr Veerle Heyvaert (London School of Economics), Dr Thomas Horsley (University of Liverpool), Dr Joanne Hunt (Cardiff University), Dr Luke McDonagh (City University of London), Dr Gregory Messenger (University of Liverpool), Dr Marc Mimler (Bournemouth University), Professor Valsamis Mitsilegas (Queen Mary University of London), Professor Niamh Moloney (London School of Economics), Dr Stephanie Reynolds (University of Liverpool) and Dr Mavluda Sattorova (University of Liverpool). Michael Dougan is Professor of European Law and Jean Monnet Chair in EU Law at the University of Liverpool. He is an ...

The UK after Brexit is the result of a cooperation between a group of leading academics from top institutions in the UK and beyond. It offers students, practitioners and scholars an authoritative, informative and thought-provoking series of analyses of some of the key challenges facing the UK legal system in and through the process of 'de-Europeanisation' – that is, in and through 'Brexit'.

1 Effective Judicial Protection Within the Community Legal Order -- 2 'Integration Through Law' and the Enforcement Deficit Debate -- 3 Regulatory Differentiation Within the Community Legal Order -- 4 Regulatory Differentiation and the Enforcement Deficit Debate -- 5 The Court of Justice's Caselaw on National Remedies and Procedural Rules I -- 6 The Court of Justice's Caselaw on National Remedies and Procedural Rules II -- 7 Conclusion

This article argues that the Union's experience of tackling increasingly complex socio-economic and geopolitical problems has revealed certain limitations in our well-established legal understanding of the principle of conferral. Our current legal approach to verifying the existence of Union competence focuses almost entirely on the relationship between each and every discrete and individual Union measure, on the one hand, and its purported legal basis or bases under the Treaties, on the other hand. That approach offers only limited recognition to the particular demands imposed on Union policymaking by challenges of formidable scale, complexity and often urgency – demanding solutions based on multi-faceted, multi-component, and highly integrated regulatory packages. Such legal diffidence can generate a range of tensions: further complicating an already difficult negotiating process; interfering in or even altogether unpicking delicate political compromises; forcing the Union institutions towards suboptimal policy responses or exposing them to allegations of "competence creep"; and raising difficult questions about the estranged legitimacy claims of robust constitutional law versus effective public governance. That analysis invites us to reflect critically on the performance, merits and limits of the current Treaty frameworkgoverning attributed Union powers, not least by suggesting some potential adaptations and reforms that might help ameliorate such tensions.

Recent ECJ case law suggests that there are exceptional circumstances when the principle of primacy should not merely require the disapplication of national rules that are incompatible with directly effective Union acts, but in fact obliges the domestic courts to regard certain incompatible national measures as null and void. It is argued that these developments are evolutionary rather than revolutionary: as a matter of constitutional principle, it does not fall outside the established framework governing Union-Member State legal relations, for the principle of primacy to extend its legal effects beyond mere disapplication. However, the relevant case law offers little clear guidance about precisely when an incompatibility with directly effective Union law should oblige the national court to treat a given domestic measure as non-existent. The rulings address very different legal and factual situations, and while it is possible to suggest certain common characteristics or criteria, it must still be left to future case law to determine how far a remedy of nullity should supplement or even displace the traditional expectation of disapplication.
PRIMACY, principles of primacy, INCOMPATIBLE NATIONAL MEASURES, DISAPPLICATION, NULLITY, remedies, Court of Justice

The United Kingdom left the European Union at midnight CET on 31 January 2020. This article provides a critical analysis of the Withdrawal Package concluded by the Union and the UK. As regards theWithdrawal Agreement designed to facilitate an orderly departure, we analyse the provisions on: governance arrangements; the transition period; citizens' rights; and the Ireland / Northern Ireland border. We then discuss the prospects for future EU-UK relations as expressed in their joint Political Declaration and developed in their respective post-withdrawal negotiating positions.

This article explores the EU principle of primacy and, in particular, the requirement that incompatible national rules be disapplied by the domestic courts. Objections to disapplication generally involve concerns about legal certainty as regards existing decisions or relationships – leading to an extensive case law (e.g.) on the non-publication of Union acts or rules of res judicata. More recently, the ECJ has faced concerns about how the prospective disapplication of national rules might create a legal vacuum capable of endangering legitimate public interests (pending adoption of fully compliant measures by the Member State). The available case law suggests the emergence of a new body of principles that qualify the full implications of primacy. But the precise division of labour between the Court and the domestic judges remains unclear. And the conditions governing the exercise of each jurisdiction might offer insufficient legal protection against the full risks of a damaging legal vacuum.

Following the EU's acceptance of the UK's formal request for a post-withdrawal transitional regime, a common understanding was reached that it would be desirable to base a transitional regime, in principle, on a temporary prolongation of the status quo. However, there remains tension between the political preferences of the two sides. The article examines these developments, and looks in particular at whether a "status quo" transition can be located within the legal basis of Article 50 TEU, also bearing in mind the broader constitutional context provided by the Treaties and Union principles. It investigates the exceptional nature of the powers conferred on the Union under Article 50 TEU. It concludes that there may be more difficulties in agreeing the transitional arrangements than is widely assumed.

This short paper summarises recent developments in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the rights to residency and equal treatment of economically inactive migrant Union citizens. Rulings such as Dano and Alimanovic have signalled a hardening of judicial attitudes, retreating from some of the more generous case law delivered by the Court in the past. That change perhaps plays to broader political concerns about the free movement of Union citizens in certain Member States – not least the United Kingdom, where such issues are playing a prominent role in the public debate about whether or not to remain a Member State of the European Union.

The article explores the concept of "scope of Union law" for the purposes of judicial review of national measures under the general principles of Union law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Court's classic case law assigned Member State acts to the categories of implementation or derogation, through a case-by-case analysis, though certain rulings never fitted neatly into that framework, prompting scholarly attempts to argue for an expanded definition of the scope of Union law: for example, by reference to a simple overlap in subject matter between Union and national legislation. The article considers recent cases which suggest the Court is willing to experiment with novel approaches to defining the scope of Union law – based on a more systematic and contextual approach to the relationship between disputed domestic acts and the Union legal order. The Court must articulate a convincing constitutional rationale for any new approach to defining the scope of Union law, consonant with the fundamental principle of conferred powers.