Abstract
AbstractThe free movement provisions enable EU citizens to follow their own ethical preferences by going to a Member State that has made a different ethical choice from their home Member State. However, UK citizens who have assisted suicide or euthanasia abroad could be criminally prosecuted on their return to England. This possibility of a criminal prosecution constitutes a restriction on free movement. Nevertheless, the free movement provisions have so far not been used to challenge the English prohibition of euthanasia. The aim of this article is to show that, based on its ultimate aim, free movement law does have a legitimate role to play in ethical issues. The internal market is based on a principle of recognition, which forces Member States to engage with regulatory choices made by other Member States. This also applies to ethical issues. Member States are not required to justify the existence of different ethical choices. However, if they decide to restrict free movement, they have to be able to show that these differences in fact exist. This approach achieves a balance between the right of citizens to make their own ethical choices, and the ability of Member States to protect their legislation on ethical issues.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference77 articles.
1. Case C-673/16 Coman and others v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrari, ECLI:EU:C:2018:385.
2. Wet toetsing levensbeëindiging op verzoek en hulp bij zelfdoding (Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act).
3. Case C-34/10 Brüstle v Greenpeace eV, ECLI:EU:C:2011:669.
4. The Substantive Law of the EU
5. Supra note 53, pp. 137–39.