¹ R (on the application of Noel Conway) v Secretary of State for Justice [2018] EWCA (Civ) 1431.Google Scholar

² R (on the application of Diane Pretty) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] UKHL 61.Google Scholar

³ R (on the application of Debbie Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] UKHL 45.Google Scholar

⁴ R (on the application of Jane Nicklinson) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2014] UKSC 38.Google Scholar

⁵ The House of Lords rejected the most recent proposal in September 2016. See Assisted Dying Bill [HL] 2016-17, Parliament. UK, http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2016-17/assisteddying.html (last visited Oct. 26, 2018).Google Scholar

⁶ For a short history of the application of the Suicide Act 1961 in the UK, see A. McCann, Assisted Dying in Europe: A Comparative Law and Governance Analysis of Four Countries and Two Supranational Systems (2016) (Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen).Google Scholar

⁷ For an explanation of the EU-Swiss relations and free movement, see supra note 6; see also A. McCann, Comparing the Law and Governance of Assisted Dying in Four European Nations, 2 Eur. J. of Comp. L. and Governance 37 (2015).Google Scholar

⁸ See for a comparative perspective, J. Griffiths, H. Weyers & M. Adams, Euthanasia and Law in Europe (Hart Publishing 2008).Google Scholar

⁹ Wet toetsing levensbeëindiging op verzoek en hulp bij zelfdoding (Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Knill, C., The Study of Morality Policy: Analytical Implications from a Public Policy Perspective, 20 J. of Eur. Pub. Pol'y 309 (2013).Google Scholar

¹¹ de Witte, F., Sex, Drugs & EU Law: The Recognition of Moral and Ethical Diversity in EU Law, 50 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1545, 1550–51 (2013).Google Scholar

¹² Article 168(7) TFEU; see T. Hervey & J. McHale, European Union Health Law: Themes and Implications (Cambridge Univ. Press 2016).Google Scholar

¹³ See H. Schepel, The Constitution of Private Governance (Hart Publishing 2005); see also B. van Leeuwen, European Standardisation of Services and its Impact on Private Law (Hart Publishing 2017).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Janssens, C., The Principle of Mutual Recognition in EU Law, pt. II (2013).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Case C-159/90 Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ltd v Stephen Grogan and others, ECLI:EU:C:1991:378.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Id. 24–27.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See O'Leary, S., The Court of Justice as a Reluctant Constitutional Adjudicator: An Examination of the Abortion Information Case, 17 Eur. L. Rev. 138 (1992); G. de Búrca, Fundamental Rights and the Reach of Community Law, 13 Oxford J. of Legal Stud. 283 (1993); D. Curtin, Case C-159/90, The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland Ltd v. Grogan, Judgment of 4 October 1999, 29 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 585 (1992).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Case C-137/09 Josemans v Burgemeester van Maastricht, ECLI:EU:C:2010:774.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Case C-34/10 Brüstle v Greenpeace eV, ECLI:EU:C:2011:669.Google Scholar

²⁰ Case C-673/16 Coman and others v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrari, ECLI:EU:C:2018:385.Google Scholar

²¹ Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States; see C. Bell & N. Bačić Selanec, Who is a “spouse” under the Citizens’ Rights Directive? The prospect of mutual recognition of same-sex marriages in the EU, 41 Eur. L. Rev. 655 (2016).Google Scholar

²² See also L. Azoulai, The European Court of Justice and the duty to respect sensitive national interests, in Judicial Activism at the European Court of Justice 167–87 (M. Dawson, B. de Witte & E. Muir eds., Edward Elgar Publishing 2013).Google Scholar

²³ Supra note 11, pp. 1568–70.Google Scholar

²⁴ Somek, A., The Argument from Transnational Effects I: Representing Outsiders through Freedom of Movement, 16 Eur. L.J. 315, 342 (2010).Google Scholar

²⁵ See Weber, M., The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1930).Google Scholar

²⁶ Case C-36/02 Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin des Bundesstadt Bonn, ECLI:EU:C:2004:614.Google Scholar

²⁷ Id. 39.Google Scholar

²⁸ Case C-208/09 Ilonka Sayn-Wittgenstein v Landeshauptmann von Wien, ECLI:EU:C:2010:806.Google Scholar

²⁹ Id. 90–94.Google Scholar

³⁰ Most textbooks on free movement law do not really provide a more theoretical perspective. See, e.g., Barnard, C., The Substantive Law of the EU, ch. 1 (2016).Google Scholar

³¹ See, e.g., W. Molle, The Economics of European Integration (2006); J. Pelkmans, European Integration, Methods and Economic Analysis (1997).Google Scholar

³² See Kochenov, D., EU Citizenship and Federalism: The Role of Rights (2017).Google Scholar

³³ But see Maduro, M., We the Court: The European Court of Justice and the European Economic Constitution (1998) (note the emphasis on economic constitution); see also, Freedom of movement under attack: Is it worth defending as the core of EU citizenship? EUI Working Papers (RSCAS) 2016/69 (focusing again on citizenship).Google Scholar

³⁴ Supra note 24; see also Somek, A., Individualism: An Essay on the Authority of the European Union (2008).Google Scholar

³⁵ Supra note 11.Google Scholar

³⁶ This is explicitly recognized in the structure of Article 3 TEU. See Weatherill, S., Law and Values in the European Union 307 (2016).Google Scholar

³⁷ Tuori, K., European Constitutionalism 149–50 (2015).Google Scholar

³⁸ Case C-438/05 International Transport Workers’ Federation v Viking Line ABP, ECLI:EU:C:2007:772.Google Scholar

³⁹ Case C-341/05 Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, ECLI:EU:C:2007:809.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Malmberg, J. & Sigeman, T., Industrial Action and EU Economic Freedoms: The Autonomous Collective Bargaining Model Curtailed by the European Court of Justice, 45 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1115 (2008). For a more recent overview, see Viking, Laval and Beyond (M. Freedland & J. Prassl eds., 2014).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Azoulai, L., The Court of Justice and the Social Market Economy, 45 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1335 (2008); B. van Leeuwen, An Illusion of Protection and an Assumption of Responsibility: The Possibility of Swedish State Liability after Laval, 14 Cambridge Yearbook of Eur. Legal Stud. 453 (2012).Google Scholar

⁴² Scicluna, N., Politicization without democratization: How the Eurozone crisis is transforming EU law and politics, 12 Int'l J. of Const. L. 545 (2014); see also G. Majone, From Regulatory State to a Democratic Default, 52 J. of Common Mkt. Stud. 1216 (2014).Google Scholar

⁴³ See Constitutional Change through Euro-Crisis Law (T. Beukers, B. de Witte & C. Kilpatrick eds., 2017).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See The Legitimacy of the European Union After Enlargement (J. Thomassen ed., 2009).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Case C-120/79 Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon), ECLI:EU:C:1979:42.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Case C-340/89 Irene Vlassopoulou v Ministerium für Jutstiz, Bundes- und Europaangelegenheiten, ECLI:EU:C:1991:193.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ For a more outcome-based perspective, see J.H.H. Weiler, Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Boundaries: Common Standards and Conflicting Values in the Protection of Human Rights in the European Legal Space, in An Identity for Europe: The Relevance of Multiculturalism in EU construction 73–101 (R. Kastoryano ed., 2009).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Supra note 14; see also K. Nicolaïdis, Trusting the Poles? Constructing Europe through Mutual Recognition, 14 J. of Eur. Pub. Pol'y 682 (2007); K. Nicolaïdis & G. Shaffer, Transnational Mutual Recognition Regimes: Governance Without Global Government, 68 L. and Contemp. Probs. 263 (2005).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Brouwer, E., Mutual Trust and the Dublin Regulation: Protection of Fundamental Rights in the EU and the Burden of Proof, 9 Utrecht L. Rev. 135 (2013); see also Willems, A., Mutual Trust as a Term of Art in EU Criminal Law: Revealing its Hybrid Character, 9 Eur. J. of Legal Stud. 211 (2016).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ cited, E. Brouwer supra note 49; see also H. Battjes & E. Brouwer, The Dublin Regulation and Mutual Trust: Judicial Coherence in EU Asylum Law?, 8 Review of European Administrative Law 183 (2015).Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Exceptions from EU Free Movement Law (P. Koutrakos, N. Nic Shuibhne & P. Syrpis eds., 2016).Google Scholar

⁵² Id.; see also N. Nic Shuibhne & M. Maci, Proving Public Interest: The Growing Impact of Evidence in Free Movement Law, 50 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 965 (2013).Google Scholar

⁵³ See Weatherill, S., The Internal Market as a Legal Concept ch. 11 (2017).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Case C-121/85 Conegate Limited v HM Customs and Excise, ECLI:EU:C:1986:114; see A. Tryfonidou, The Federal Implications of the Transformation of the Market Freedoms into Sources of Fundamental Rights for the Citizen, in EU Citizenship and Federalism: The Role of Rights 316–40 (D. Kochenov ed., 2017).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Case C-268/99 Aldona Jany and others v Staatssecretaris van Justitie, ECLI:EU:C:2001:616.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Supra note 26, 32–33.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Supra note 28, 74.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Supra note 11, pp. 1566–70.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Id. at 1570–75. For a similar approach, see J. Mulder, Responsive Adjudication and the ‘Social Legitimacy’ of the Internal Market, 22 Eur. L.J. 597, 610–12 (2016).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ For a discussion of a hypothetical case involving the UK and Switzerland, see A. McCann, supra note 7.Google Scholar

⁶¹ See Levenseindekliniek, www.levenseindekliniek.nl (last visited Oct. 27, 2018). For more background, see Angela Neustatter, Assisted Dying: How Does it Work in a Dutch End-of-Life-Clinic?, Guardian (Sept. 11, 2015), https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/sep/11/assisted-dying-dutch-end-of-life-netherlands-unbearable-suffering.Google Scholar

⁶² See Coroners and Justice Act 2009 c. 25 § 59 (Eng.). For a discussion, see P. Arnell, Law Across Borders: The Extraterritorial Application of United Kingdom Law (2012). For an ethical perspective on extraterritorial jurisdiction in assisted suicide or euthanasia cases, see I. Glenn Cohen, Patients with Passports: Medical Tourism, Law and Ethics 315–70 (2015).Google Scholar

⁶³ Case C-76/90 Manfred Säger v Dennemeyer & Co Ltd, ECLI:EU:C:1991:331.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Director of Public Prosecutions, Policy for Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide (February 2010) (updated October 2014).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Supra note 53, pp. 137–39.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Wet toetsing levensbeëindiging op verzoek en hulp bij zelfdoding (Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ See also supra note 47.Google Scholar