The European Court of Justice (ECHJ) is to determine whether the United Kingdom can cancel Brexit without the consent of other 27 EU members.
A group of anti-Brexit politicians and campers has proved that the United Kingdom can stop the Brexit process as soon as possible.
Her case is opponent of the British government and the EU itself.
But a senior EIA official said last week, he said the UK should change his mind to leave.
The court will now deliver its final decision in the case of the board that is expected to be issued Monday, 08:00.
It comes the day before the House of Commons is due to vote on the brokality deal of a ministerial president of # 39; the Prime Minister with the EU.
The campers hope the victory in their acting will reduce the chances of brexit, completely by another referendum.
This is because they believe it will send the message that the Provincial Executive does not make a choice between the acceptance of a fraction of # May or the EU without deal, and there are "other options, and we can stop the clock".
The case is housed by a group of private group politicians, including Scottish Green MSPs Andy Wightman and Ross Greer, SNP MEP Alyn Smith and MP Joanna Cherry and Labor MEPs David Martin and Catherine Stihler, supported by Jolyon Maugham QC Good Law Project.
They received a great uprising during the last week when one of the lawyers of EJJ, Manuel Campos Sanchez-Bordona, issued a statement that their position was placed.
Mr. Campos Sanchez-Bordona said that his opinion was that if a country was to decide to grant the EU, it must also have the power to change its mind in the biennial outcome project in Article 50 of the EU treaty is called.
Responsible, he also said it should be without the consent of other EU states.
This was despite the warning of EU in a previous justice that would put a fierce president through other countries to announce that they were in an attempt to confirm better membership before they returned.
The opinion of a general lawyer is not legally binding, but the justice tends to follow their advice in the majority of cases.
The government's lawyers have argued that the case is not hypothetical as "the United Kingdom does not decide to refute its notification", and the regulars of EJJ should therefore reject the regulation.
They also have proved that the politician wants to make use of "political ammunition to use and pressure, the UK Parliament".
The case was initially taken to the Court of Sesje in Edinburgh, which has been appropriately agreed to implement the EC.
Two British government's resistance to the references to the European Court were rejected, and the case was heard over the last 27 months by all 27 ECJ judges.