Author
Listed:
- Told Julia
(Dr. Julia Told, Research and Teaching Assistant at the Department of Commercial and Business Law, University of Vienna. E-mail: julia.told@univie.ac.at.University of ViennaDepartment of Commercial and Business LawViennaAustria)
Abstract
The United Kingdom (UK) has voted to leave the European Union (EU). Ever since the deficiencies of Art. 50 TEU allowing for an exit from the EU (‘Exit’) have caused legal uncertainty. This article intends to shade light on the main questions causing this uncertainty: In a first main part it elaborates on the requirements to be met in order to invoke Art. 50 TEU. As of now, it is discussed highly controversially if a notification pursuant to Art. 50 TEU is conditional upon the compliance with national constitutional requirements and if such a notification can be unilaterally revoked. It is found that national constitutional requirements have to be met before Art. 50 TEU can be invoked and that a notification is not unilaterally revocable. Furthermore, this part elaborates on the requirements for the conclusion of an Exit-agreement as well as the consequences of an Exit without an Exit-agreement. The second main part of the article shifts perspective to potential future legal relations between a former Member State and the EU. It structures possible legal consequences by classifying four different scenarios: (1) No Exit, (2) Exit and the former Member State remaining member of the EEA on the side of EFTA, (3) Exit and bilateral approach compared e. g. to Switzerland, Turkey or Canada (4) Exit and no more direct legal connections between the EU and the former Member State besides multilateral international treaties. In a third part these scenarios are tested on their legal consequences in certain areas of law most of them relating to European business law. Of course, this article can by no means address all affected areas of law and had to make a choice.
Suggested Citation
Told Julia, 2017.
"(BR)EXIT from the EU: A Legal Perspective,"
European Company and Financial Law Review, De Gruyter, vol. 14(3), pages 490-567, October.
Handle:
RePEc:bpj:eucflr:v:14:y:2017:i:3:p:490-567:n:4
DOI: 10.1515/ecfr-2017-0025
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:eucflr:v:14:y:2017:i:3:p:490-567:n:4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.