Revista Temas de Derecho Constitucional

325 La cuestión preliminar del TJUE sobre la revocatoria del brexit: fortaleciendo el derecho constitucional de la unión europea. has given rise to a dispute”. 29 Moreover, one of the petitioners and the two interven- ers (who are UK’s MPs) would vote on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and, in particular, in accordance with section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, on the ratification of the agreement negotiated between the United Kingdom Government and the European Union pursuant to Article 50 TEU. Therefore, the answer given by the ECJ will clarify the options open to them in exercis- ing their parliamentary mandates. 30 After clarifying that, the Court drew the lines in terms of the admissibility of the request between EU law and the domestic law of Member States. Evidently, the power to assess the admissibility of the action in the main proceedings remains within the jurisdiction of the national court. Similarly, the order for reference has to be made in accordance with the rules of national law governing the organisation of the courts and legal pro- ceedings. 31 Therefore, it is a matter for the the referring court the rejection of the pleas of inadmis- sibility raised before it by the UK Government concerning the hypothetical or academic nature of the action in the main proceedings. Therefore, in so far as the arguments of the UK Government and of the Commission are intended to call into question the ad- missibility of that action, they are irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether the request for a preliminary ruling is admissible. 32 The declaratory nature of the action in the main proceedings does not preclude the possibility that the Court rules on a question referred for a preliminary ruling, as long as “the action is permitted under national law and that the question meets an objec- tive need for the purpose of settling the dispute properly brought before the referring court”. 33 Deciding in favour of the admissibility 34 , the Court determined accordingly the exis- tence of a dispute in the main proceedings before the referring court. 35 Furthermore, the question was deemed relevant by the ECJ, as it concerns the interpretation of of Article 50 TEU a provision of EU primary law which is precisely the point at issue in the dispute in the main proceedings. 36 In addressing the allegation that the referring court seeks to obtain an advisory opinion from the Court, circumventing the procedure set out in Article 218(11) TFEU, the Court stated that referring court did not ask the Court for an opinion on the compatibility of 29 Judgment, para 28. 30 Judgment, para 29. 31 Judgment, para 30. The Court cited to that effect, judgments of 16 June 2015, Gauweiler and Others, C 62/14, EU:C:2015:400, paragraph 26, and of 7 February 2018, American Express, C 304/16, EU:C:2018:66, paragraph 34 32 The Court cited judgment of 13 March 2007, Unibet, C 432/05, EU:C:2007:163, paragraph 33. 33 Judgement, para 31. The Court cited judgments of 15 December 1995, Bosman, C 415/93, EU:C:1995:463, paragraph 65, and of 16 June 2015, Gauweiler and Others, C 62/14, EU:C:2015:400 paragraph 28. 34 Para 36. 35 The Court cited, to that effect, the judgment of 8 July 2010 in Afton Chemical, C 343/09, EU:C:2010:419, paragraphs 11 and 15 36 Paras 33 and 34.