Explanatory Notes are available - HERE. Previous posts considering aspects of the Bill are OVERVIEW , ECA Repeal and Exit Day , Retention of Existing EU Law and Clause 6 - Interpretation.
Schedule 1 makes frequent appearances in the Bill - see Clause 2(3), Clause 3(5), Clause 4(3). The wording, on each occasion, is - "This section is subject to section 5 and Schedule 1 (exceptions to savings and incorporation). Tucked away in this Schedule are some very important matters:
A] Challenges to the validity of retained EU law:
The EU Treaties permit challenges to the validity of EU legislation to be brought in the CJEU. A recent example concerned the Tobacco Products Directive - Directive 2014/40/EU. In May 2016, the CJEU rejected various challenges to the directive - HERE.
Schedule 1 paragraph 1 is concerned with preventing challenges to retained EU law being brought in domestic law - "There is no right in domestic law on or after exit day to challenge any retained EU law on the basis that, immediately before exit day, an EU instrument was invalid." However, a challenge may be possible if (a) the European Court has decided before exit day that the instrument is invalid, or (b) the challenge is of a kind described, or provided for, in regulations made by a Minister of the Crown. Such Regulations may (among other things) provide for a challenge which would otherwise have been against an EU institution to be against a public authority in the United Kingdom.
B] General Principles of EU Law:
Schedule 1 paragraph 2 and 3 are concerned with General principles of EU law and state that - "No general principle of EU law is part of domestic law on or after exit day if it was not recognised as a general principle of EU law by the European Court in a case decided before exit day (whether or not as an essential part of the decision in the case).
There will be no right of action in domestic law on or after exit day based on a failure to comply with any of the general principles of EU law.
An example of a Francovich claim failing is Carswell v Secretary of State for Transport  EWHC 3230. Another example is the Recall Support Services  EWCA Civ 1370. However, a claimant succeeded in Delaney v Secretary of State for Transport  EWCA Civ 172 - a decision about which the Mail Online (9th March 2015) commented in (unusually) quite moderate terms.
There have been calls for a right to sue for damages to be preserved - HERE.
The Explanatory Notes - HERE - say that - "Paragraph 4 provides that the right to claim damages against the state for breaches of EU law (Francovich damages) will not be available after exit. This provision does not affect any specific statutory rights to claim damages in respect of breaches of retained EU law (for example, under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 ) or the case law which applies to the interpretation of any such provisions.
This is another example of why the state of EU law - as it stands at Exit Day - will be so important.