Brexit represents a terra incognita within the meaning of EU law. ( 78 ) Little is known about the arrangements to be adopted between the EU and the UK after 29 March 2019, neither in general nor with regard to the EIC system in particular. ( 79 ) What is certain is that after leaving the EU, the tide will recede at some point. EU law will flow along rivers and exit estuaries. ( 80 ) Since autumn 2017, the European Parliament has been aware that the continuation of the United Kingdom in the EU and the United Kingdom would be an important element of the future relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom. In the summer of 2018, the European Commission`s draft report on future security cooperation again made accession to the ECHR an essential condition. Theorists of international relations and international law have argued that one of the main reasons for States` accession to the ECHR is to create a form of democratic liaison that would define the rights it contains and the frameworks created to protect them, in part because it would be difficult for States to leave the Convention. Although it is superficially easy for a country to leave the ECHR, an exit mechanism is included in Article 58 of the Convention and there are no direct economic consequences for a state, the interconnection of the ECHR with other European institutions creates a layer of political restrictions that restrict withdrawal. The prospect of a withdrawal agreement was clearly used by the European Parliament in its March 2018 resolution as a lever in which any future trade agreement must be in “strict compliance” with EU values and the UK must effectively remain in the ECHR.
The Court is asked, in essence, whether, in a situation where a Member State (1) has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the Union in accordance with Article 50(2) TEU and (2) has adopted an EDF in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Framework Decision in order to surrender a requested person from another Member State; the legal assessment to be made by that other Member State in the execution of the TSE and, if so, to what extent, shall be modified on the basis of the abovementioned notice of withdrawal. R O opposed its surrender to the United Kingdom in respect of matters arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (`the ECHR`), resulting from possible inhuman and degrading treatment; that he would suffer if imprisoned in Maghaberry Prison in Northern Ireland. He argues that there is no clarity on how his rights will be guaranteed under the Framework Decision after the UK`s withdrawal from the EU. ( 79 ) In this respect, many scenarios are possible, e.B. a specific agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom, such as the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway, referred to in footnote 61 of this opinion, which was approved for the first time on behalf of the EU by Council Decision of 27 June 2006 (OJ L 292). p. (1) and following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, which required further approval, by Council decision of 27 November 2014 (OJ 2014 L 343, p. 1). However, as far as I know, this agreement has not yet entered into force. .