Renewed applications for permission to apply for judicial review of the decision taken to leave the EU: ‘The thrust of the claim is that the UK Government has allegedly already decided that an automatic consequence of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union is that the EEA Agreement would cease to apply to the United Kingdom and that notification of withdrawal from the EEA Agreement under Article 127 is not required. They contend that that alleged decision is wrong as it is based on a misunderstanding of the effect of the EEA Agreement.
The second set of claims involves claims by four individuals who seek to challenge what they describe as:
‘The Defendant’s attempt to withdraw from the European Union on the assumption that the United Kingdom will no longer be in the EEA without prior approval from HM Treasury and an act of Parliament providing authorisation.’
Held: ‘We refuse permission in these claims for the reason that the claims are premature. We do not consider it necessary to comment on each of the reasons given by the judge and we express no view on the correctness of each of those reasons.’
Citations:
[2017] EWHC 630 (Admin)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Yalland and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union (629) Admn 3-Feb-2017
Application for anonymity order – challenge to constitutionality of proposed steps in leaving the EU.
Held: Granted for those applying for it.
The common law rights of the public and press to know about court proceedings are also . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Constitutional, European
Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.628715