UK has voted Brexit: What happens now???

Triggering Article 50 of The Lisbon Treaty, formally notifying the intension to withdraw, starts a two-year clock running. After that, the Treaties that govern membership no longer apply to Britain.  The terms of exit will be negotiated between Britain’s 27 counterparts, and each will have a veto over the conditions.

It will also be subject to ratification in national parliaments, meaning, for example, that Belgian MPs could stymie the entire process.

Two vast negotiating teams will be created, far larger than those seen in the British renegotiation. The EU side is likely to be headed by one of the current Commissioners.

It means that the UK Government would have to do three acts simultaneous: negotiate a new deal with Brussels, win a series of major bilateral trade deals around the world, and revise its own governance as EU law recedes. Running the show would be an effective “Ministry for Brexit”, under a senior minister. Therefore, officials expect the scrapping of EU law could result in an avalanche of new legislation in every corner of Whitehall – perhaps 25 Bills in every Queen’s Speech for a decade.

How long would it take to leave the EU?
It would take a minimum of two years for the UK to leave the EU. During that time Britain would continue to abide by EU treaties and laws - however it would not take part in any decision making.

The agreement would have to be ratified both by the European Council and the parliament in Strasbourg.

Untying Britain from the old membership is the easy bit. Harder would be agreeing a new trading relationship, establishing what tariffs and other barriers to entry are permitted, and agreeing on obligations such as free movement. Such a process, EU leaders claim, could take another five years. Business leaders want the easiest terms possible, to prevent economic harm. But political leaders say the conditions will be brutal to discourage other states from following suit.

Now, although the EU needs to deal with popular anger, the remedy lies in boosting growth. Completing the single market in, say, digital services and capital markets would create jobs and prosperity. The euro zone needs stronger underpinnings, starting with a proper banking union. Acting on age-old talk of returning powers, including labour-market regulation, to national governments would show that the EU is not bent on acquiring power no matter what.

At the same time, leaders fear that Brexit could trigger a domino effect as the bloc without Britain becomes less attractive to liberal, rich northern states such as Denmark and the Netherlands, where demands are growing for copy-cat plebiscites.The Dutch elections are held in March next year, the French in April and May and Germany in the Autumn. If an independent Britain proves to be a success, the bloc could quickly unravel. 

Source: UK Electoral Commision

More details see here

The case Mitrov v. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”

Today, 02 june 2016, the European Court of Human Rights, has notified in writing  the case Mitrov v. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 45959/09). 

   The applicant, Slobodan Mitrov, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Strumica (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”).        The case concerned a traffic accident in which the daughter of a criminal-law judge was killed. Mr Mitrov was involved in November 2006 in a traffic accident in which an 18-year-old girl was killed. She was the daughter of a judge, M.A., working in the criminal section of the Strumica Court of First Instance. An investigation was opened against Mr Mitrov who had been one of the drivers in the car accident and he was subsequently charged and convicted in March 2008 by the Strumica trial court for driving at excessive speed and under the influence of alcohol. He was sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment. The trial court also upheld the compensation claim lodged by the victim’s family against Mr Mitrov’s insurance company. Mr Mitrov’s appeal was dismissed in September 2008 and his sentence increased to six years’ imprisonment. His appeal for extraordinary review of a final judgment was also dismissed in January 2009 by the Supreme Court.

   The most questionable moment was that throughout the proceedings, Mr Mitrov asked the judges deciding on his case to be excluded, submitting that they were adjudicating a case concerning an incident in which their colleague’s daughter had died. On appeal, he further submitted that one of the judges had previously worked as a court clerk delegated to judge M.A., the victim’s mother, who had also been president of the criminal section of the trial court. His requests that the case be assigned to another court were, however, all refused.

  Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Mitrov  complained about the unfairness of the proceedings against him, alleging in particular that the trial court which had decided on his case had lacked impartiality.

   Therefore, the Court notes in this respect that similar considerations apply in respect of all the judges in the trial court. In this connection it observes that the domestic law did provide for the possibility of transferring a case to another competent court, a practice which according to the applicant, and not refuted by the Government, had been applied in similar circumstances. In the Court’s view this is sufficient to conclude that in the present case the applicant’s fears as to the impartiality of the trial court could have been considered objectively justified.

    Finally, violation of Article 6 § 1 (impartial tribunal) 

The integral judgement could be found here