A group of individuals (together named the Belfast Agreement Defence Group) have foreshadowed a judicial review in the High Court of England & Wales (Administrative Court). The challenge would seek an alternative to the Irish backstop protocol as provided for in the Draft EU Withdrawal Agreement which was agreed in principle between the UK Government and the EU in November last year. Continue reading

EIOPA issues Brexit advice – some good news for UK insurers and intermediaries?

The post below was first published on our Insurance blog

Recommendations issued on Tuesday by EIOPA emphasise the importance of safeguarding policyholders in the event of a “no deal” Brexit.  Encouragement given to EEA states to help UK insurers meet their obligations to EEA policyholders is particularly welcome.

In some areas, EIOPA has provided explicit guidance on the approach it expects individual states to take.  For example, it is clear (and unsurprising) that UK insurers should not be allowed to write new contracts in the EEA without authorisation. In other areas, EIOPA has taken a “softer” approach. Continue reading

High Courts finds European Medicines Agency lease not frustrated by Brexit

The post below was first published on our Litigation blog

Updated 8 July 2019: According to press reports, the European Medicines Agency will no longer be pursuing its appeal in this case, having settled the dispute following an agreement to sublet the Canary Wharf premises to Wework.

The High Court has rejected an argument that the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA’s) lease of premises at Canary Wharf will be frustrated as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the UK: Canary Wharf (B4) T1 Ltd and others v European Medicines Agency [2019] EWHC 335 (Ch). Continue reading

Draft Civil Procedure Rule changes in the event of a no deal Brexit

The post below was first published on our Litigation blog

The government has published a draft statutory instrument, the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which makes amendments to the CPR that are consequential on the various other civil justice measures that are to be implemented in the event of a no deal Brexit. These include, most importantly, the disapplication of the recast Brussels Regulation and the Lugano Convention in relation to questions of jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments (as outlined here), as well as the disapplication of the EU Service Regulation and Taking of Evidence Regulation – in each case subject to transitional provisions.

The CPR amendments, which will only take effect if there is a no deal Brexit, include sweeping changes to CPR Part 6 in relation to service of documents and Part 74 in relation to enforcement of foreign judgments, as well as changes to other rules such as the provisions in Part 25 relating to security for costs. The most significant amendments are outlined below. Continue reading

The View from Paris: French “no-deal” Brexit planning – Act two: the future of UK financial services industry in France

Only fifteen days after activating the French Brexit Act (Act n°2019-30) authorising the French Government to set out ordinances relating to transitional measures due to a “no-deal” Brexit, the French Government published on 6 February an ordinance about financial services (Ordonnance n°2019-75, OJ 07.02.2019) (the “Order“). Continue reading

The View from Brussels – how to use EU law to improve the Brexit deal along the lines requested by the UK Parliament

In this View from Brussels we discuss how EU law could be used by the UK to improve the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration along the lines recently requested by the UK Parliament.

The backstop, if triggered, starts to apply only once the transition period has expired and has no end date. As such, it relates to the UK/EU future relations. However, the EU has argued that Article 50 only allows the conclusion of an agreement that deals with separation issues, not agreements setting out a future relationship. The backstop therefore exposes a major inconsistency in the position of the EU on what is legally allowed under Article 50, meaning that the backstop in its present from is illegal as a matter of EU law. Continue reading