I think that the pertinent paragraph of that ^ ruling is:
The revocation by a Member State of the notification of its intention to withdraw reflects a
sovereign decision to retain its status as a Member State of the European Union, a status
which is neither suspended nor altered by that notification.
Revoking as a means to unilateral force a mere scheduling extension would not reflect a sovereign decision to retain our status as a Member State of the EU and hence the revocation would be seen to be unlawful.
I think that the pertinent paragraph of that ^ ruling is:
Revoking as a means to unilateral force a mere scheduling extension would not reflect a sovereign decision to retain our status as a Member State of the EU and hence the revocation would be seen to be unlawful.