¹ At the moment, this category of EU Member States includes France, Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, and Sweden.Google Scholar

² See Tarnovo Constitution, art. 46 (Bulg.); Satversme [Constitution], art. 110 (Lat.); Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucija [Constitution], art. 38 (Lith.); Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej [Constitution], art. 18 (Pol.); Magyarország Alaptörvénye [The Fundamental Law of Hungary], Alaptörvénye, art. L.Google Scholar

³ Bamforth, Nicholas, The Benefits of Marriage in All but Name-Same-Sex Couples and the Civil Partnership Act 2004, 19 Child & Fam. L.Q. 133 (2007).Google Scholar

⁴ France is a case on point.Google Scholar

⁵ For a reference to this case, see Johan Meeusen, Instrumentalisation of Private International Law in the European Union: Towards a European Conflicts Revolution?, 9 Eur. J. Migration & L. 287, 297 (2007).Google Scholar

⁶ For references to cases in Eastern Europe, see Adam Bodnar & Anna Śledzińska-Simon, Between Recognition and Homophobia: Same-Sex Couples in Eastern Europe, in Same-Sex Couples Before National, Supranational and International Jurisdiction 211 (Daniele Gallo, Luca Paladini & Pietro Pustorino eds., 2014).Google Scholar

⁷ For an overview, see Part B of this Article.Google Scholar

⁸ Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2595 (2015).Google Scholar

⁹ Michaels, Ralf, The New European Choice-of-Law Revolution, 82 Tul. L. Rev. 1607, 1632 (2008).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Watt, Horatia Muir, European Federalism and the “New Unilateralism,” 82 Tul. L. Rev. 1983, 64 (2007).Google Scholar

¹¹ Koppelman, Andrew, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 93 (2006).Google Scholar

¹² To get an idea of the responsibilities and benefits that could possibly be conferred on married couples, see Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2601 (2015).Google Scholar

¹³ Regulation (EEC) No. 1612/68 of Oct. 15, 1968, art. 10, 1968 O.J. (L 257). The Regulation could also be read to provide the same-sex partner with protection. See Andrew Clapham & J.H.H. Weiler, Lesbians and Gay Men in the European Community Legal Order, in 26 Homosexuality: A European Community Issue: Essays on Lesbian and Gay Rights in European Law and Policy 7 (Kees Waaldijk & Andrew Clapham eds., 1993).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Council Directive 2004/38, art. 2(2)(a), 2004 O.J. (L 158) 77, 88 (EC).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Council Directive 2004/38, art. 2(2)(b), 2004 O.J. (L 158) 77, 88 (EC).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Council Directive 2004/38, art. 3(2)(b), 2004 O.J. (L 158) 77, 88 (EC).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Bell, Mark, Holding Back the Tide? Cross-Border Recognition of Same-Sex Partnerships within the European Union, 12 Eur. Rev. Private L. 613 (2004); Helen Toner, Partnership Rights, Free Movement, and EU Law 60–68 (2004).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Anne Pieter van der Mei, Book Reviews, 14 Maastricht J. Eur. & Comp. L. 101, 102–03 (2007).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Boele-Woelki, Katharina, The Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships within the European Union, 82 Tul. L. Rev. 1949, 1970 (2007).Google Scholar

²⁰ See Bell, Mark, We Are Family-Same-Sex Partners and EU Migration Law, 9 Maastricht J. Eur. & Comp. L. 335, 351–52 (2002); Jorrit Rijpma & Nelleke Koffeman, Free Movement Rights for Same-Sex Couples Under EU Law: What Role to Play for the CJEU?, in Same-Sex Couples Before National, Supranational and International Jurisdictions 455 (Daniele Gallo, Luca Paladini & Pietro Pustorino eds., 2014); Gerard-René de Groot, Private International Law Aspects Relating to Homosexual Couples, 11 Electronic J. Comp. L. 1, 30 (2007), http://ejcl.org/113/article113-12.pdf; Türkan Ertuna Lagrand, Mutual Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages from an EU Immigration Law Perspective, in Equality and Justice: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the XXI Century 241 (Alexander Schuster ed., 2011); Justine Quinn, Free Movement and the European Family—Falling in Love with the Common Market, in Equality and Justice: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the XXI Century 257 (Alexander Schuster ed., 2011).Google Scholar

²¹ Baraldi, Matteo Bonini, EU Family Policies Between Domestic “Good Old Values” and Fundamental Rights: The Case of Same-Sex Families, 15 Maastricht J. Eur. & Comp. L. 517 (2008); Rijpma & Koffeman, supra note 20, at 461–65.Google Scholar

²² The 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex marriages in Obergefell v. Hodges has, of course, radically changed the situation. The Supreme Court held that “if States are required by the Constitution to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the justifications for refusing to recognize those marriages performed elsewhere are undermined.” For an EU-U.S. comparison pre-Obergefell, see Adam Weiss, Federalism and the Gay Family: Free Movement of Same-Sex Couples in the United States and the European Union, 41 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 81 (2007).Google Scholar

²³ For an overview of how federal principles interact with the free movement of same-sex couples in the U.S., see Koppelman, supra note 11; Linda J. Silberman, Can the Island of Hawaii Bind the World—A Comment on Same-Sex Marriage and Federalism Values, 16 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 191(1996).Google Scholar

²⁴ Kochenov, Dimitry, On Options of Citizens and Moral Choices of States: Gays and European Federalism, 33 Fordham Int'l L.J. 156, 165-167 (2009). On exit more generally, Seth F. Kreimer, Federalism and Freedom, in 574 The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 66 (2001).Google Scholar

²⁵ Kochenov, , supra note 24, at 189–95; Koen Lenaerts, Federalism and the Rule of Law: Perspectives from the European Court of Justice, 33 Fordham Int'l L.J. 1338, 1355–61 (2009).Google Scholar

²⁶ In addition to the examples referred to in the introduction, see also Patrick Wautelet, Private International Law Aspects of Same-Sex Marriages and Partnerships in Europe—Divided We Stand?, in Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in Europe: National, Cross-Border and European Perspectives 163–66 (Katharina Boele-Woelki & Angelika Fuchs eds., 2012); Giacomo Biagoni, On Recognition of Foreign Same-Sex Marriages and Partnerships, in Same Sex Couples Before National, Supranational and International Jurisdictions, 375–76 (Daniele Gallo, Luca Paladini & Pietro Pustorino eds., 2014).Google Scholar

²⁷ Treaty on the European Union, Oct. 26, 2012, 2012 O.J. (C 326) 13, art. 4(2) [hereinafter TEU].Google Scholar

²⁸ Case C-148/02, Garcia Avello v. Belgium State, 2003 E.C.R. I-11613.Google Scholar

²⁹ Case C-353/06, Stefan Grunkin and Dorothee R. Paul v. Leohnard M. Grunkin-Paul and Standesamt S. Niebüll, 2008 E.C.R. I-7639, para. 34.Google Scholar

³⁰ See generally Christoph Schönberger, European Citizenship as Federal Citizenship: Some Citizenship Lessons of Comparative Federalism, 19 Revue Européenne de Droit Public 61 (2007).Google Scholar

³¹ As Laycock observed, membership of an American state is not based on “kinship.” Douglas Laycock, Equal Citizens of Equal and Territorial States: The Constitutional Foundations of Choice of Law, 92 Colum. L. Rev. 249, 317 (1992). See also Rainer Bauböck, The Three Levels of Citizenship Within the European Union, 15 German L.J. 751 (2014); Schönberger, supra note 30.Google Scholar

³² Treaty on the Functioning European Union, Oct. 26, 2012, 2012 O.J. (C 326) 47, art. 20 [hereinafter TFEU].Google Scholar

³³ The right to non-discrimination on the basis of nationality not only ensures that all Union citizens residing within the Member State receive equal treatment, but also allows Union citizens coming from other Member State to become part of, and integrate in, the host Member State. Loïc Azoulai, “Euro-Bonds” The Ruiz Zambrano Judgment or the Real Invention of EU Citizenship, 3 Perspectives on Federalism 31 (2011).Google Scholar

³⁴ Garcia Avello, Case C-148/02 at paras. 13–19.Google Scholar

³⁵ Id. at para. 27.Google Scholar

³⁶ Id. at paras. 31–35.Google Scholar

³⁷ Id. at para. 36.Google Scholar

³⁸ Lehmann, Matthias, What's in a Name? Grunkin-Paul and Beyond, 8 Yearbook of Private Int'l L. 134, 141 (2010); Cathryn Costello, Citizenship of the Union: Above Abuse?, in Prohibition of Abuse of Law: A New General Principle of EU Law? 321, 331–32 (Rita de La Feria & Stefan Vogenauer eds., 2011).Google Scholar

³⁹ Case C-434/09, Sheila McCarthy v. Sec'y of State for the Home Dep't, 2011 E.C.R. I-3375, para. 56.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Garcia Avello, Case C-148/02 at para. 37.Google Scholar

⁴¹ For the extraterritorial effects of case law on personal statuses more generally, see Horatia Muir Watt, Future Directions?, in Private International Law and Global Governance 343, 336–70 (Horatia Muir Watt & Diego P. Fernández Arroyo eds., 2014).Google Scholar

⁴² For the party autonomy in the names cases, see Toni Marzal Yetano, The Constitutionalisation of Party Autonomy in European Family Law, 6 J. Private Int'l L. 155 (2010); Jan-Jaap Kuipers, Cartesio and Grunkin-Paul: Mutual Recognition as a Vested Rights Theory Based on Party Autonomy in Private Law, 2 Eur. J. Legal Stud. 66 (2009).Google Scholar

⁴³ Now TFEU art. 20.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Case C-184/99, Rudy Grzelczyk v. Centre public d'aide sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, 2001 E.C.R. I-6193, para. 31; Case C-413/99, Baumbast and R v. Sec'y of State for the Home Dep't, 2002 E.C.R. I-7091, para. 82; Joined Cases C-482/01 and C-493/01, Orfanopoulos and Oliveri v. Land Baden Württemberg, 2004 E.C.R. I-5257, para. 65; Case C-34/09, Ruiz Zambrano v. Office national de l'emploi, 2011 E.C.R. I-1177, para. 41.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Weiler, J.H.H., Epilogue: Judging the Judges—Apology and Critique, in Judging Europe's Judges: The Legitimacy of the Case Law of the European Court of Justice 235, 248 (Maurice Adams et al. eds., 2013).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Davies, Gareth, The Entirely Conventional Supremacy of Union Citizenship and Rights, in Has the European Court of Justice Challenged Member States in nationality Law? (Jo Shaw ed., 2011). See also, Dimitry Kochenov, Case C-135/08, Janko Rottmann v. Freistaat Bayern, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 March 2010, 47 Common Market L. Rev. 1831 (2010).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ But see Davies, Gareth, “Any Place I Hang My Hat?” Or: Residence Is the New Nationality, 11 Eur. L.J. 43 (2005). For a critique of this view, see Floris de Witte, The End of EU Citizenship and the Means of Non-Discrimination, 18 Maastricht J. Eur. & Comp. L. 86, 102 (2011).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Wet Conflictenrecht Huwelijk van 7 september 1989 Trb. 1987, 137 (Neth.).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Bogdan, Michael, Private International Law Aspects of the Introduction of Same-Sex Marriages in Sweden, 78 Nordic J. Int'l L. 253, 257 (2009).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Opinion of Attorney General Sharpston at paras. 21–23, Case C-353/06, Stefan Grunkin and Dorothee R. Paul v. Leohnard M. Grunkin-Paul and Standesamt S. Niebüll (Apr. 24, 2008).Google Scholar

⁵¹ An earlier case, entailing the same facts, was dismissed by the ECJ: Case C-96/04, Standesamt S. Niebüll, 2006 E.C.R. I-3561.Google Scholar

⁵² Case C-406/04, De Cuyper v. Office national de l'emploi, 2006 E.C.R. I-6947, para. 39; Case C-499/06, Nerkowska v. Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Koszalinie, 2008 E.C.R. I-3993, para. 32.Google Scholar

⁵³ Grunkin and Paul, Case C-353/06 at paras. 21–22.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Id. at paras. 30–32.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Kochenov, , supra note 24, at 199.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Yetano, Marzal, supra note 42, at 159; Meeusen, supra note 5, at 296.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ On the concept of abuse of law, see Alexandre Saydé, Abuse of EU Law and Regulation of the Internal Market (2014); Prohibition of Abuse of Law: A New General Principle of EU Law? (Rita De La Feria & Stefan Vogenauer eds., 2011).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Cerioni, Luca, The “Abuse of Rights” in EU Company Law and EU Tax Law: A Re-Reading of the ECJ Case Law and the Quest for a Unitary Notion, 21 Eur. Bus. L. Rev. 783, 789 (2010).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Case C-255/02, Halifax plc et al. v. Comm'rs of Customs & Excise, 2006 E.C.R. I-1609, para. 69; Case C-110/99, Emsland-Stärke GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas, 2000 E.C.R. I-11569, para. 51. See also Saydé, supra note 57, at 83–93.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Case C-212/97, Centros Ltd. v. Erhvervs-og Selskabsstyrelsen, 1999 E.C.R. I-1459, para. 25.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Schammo, Pierre, Arbitrage and Abuse of Rights in the EC Legal System, 14 Eur. L.J. 351 (2008); See Saydé, supra note 57, at 93–98.Google Scholar

⁶² Case C-196/04, Cadbury Schweppes v. Comm'rs of Inland Revenue, 2006 E.C.R. I-7995, para. 54–64.Google Scholar

⁶³ Centros, Case C-212/97 at para. 27; Case C-167/01, Van Koophandel v. Inspire Art, 2003 E.C.R. I-10155, paras. 137–38.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ On voting with one's feet, see Kreimer, supra note 24; Richard A. Epstein, Exit Rights Under Federalism, 55 Law & Contemp. Probs. 147 (1992). For a more skeptical view, see Douglas Laycock, Voting with Your Feet Is No Substitute for Constitutional Rights, 32 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 29 (2009). For a translation of these ideas in the context of the EU, see Floris de Witte, Transnational Solidarity and the Mediation of Conflicts of Justice in Europe, 18 Eur. L.J. 694, 699 (2012); Kochenov, supra note 24.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See also Koppelman, , supra note 11, at 102.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ See, by analogy, Case C-168/08, Hadadi v. Mesko, 2009 E.C.R. I-6871, para 43.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Council Regulation 2201/2003 of Nov. 27 2003, Concerning Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters and the Matters of Parental Responsibility, 2003 O.J. (L 338) 1-29 (EC).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Case C-456/12, O & B v. Minister voor Immigratie, (Dec. 12, 2014), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ On justifying non-recognition, see generally Christine Janssens, The Principle of Mutual Recognition in EU Law __ (2013).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Vonk, Olivier, Dual Nationality in the European Union: A Study on Changing Norms in Public and Private International Law and in the Municipal Laws of Four EU Member States 148 (2012); Janssens, supra note 69.Google Scholar

⁷¹ In 1999, the ECJ still maintained that “the national provisions of private international law determining the substantive national law applicable to the effects of a divorce [do not] … fall within the scope of the Treaty.” Case C-430/97, Johannes v. Johannes, 1999 E.C.R. I-3475, para. 27.Google Scholar

⁷² Grunkin and Paul, Case C-353/06 at paras. 32–34.Google Scholar

⁷³ Kuipers, , supra note 42, at 83–84.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ For analysis, see Janssens, , supra note 69, at 38–40.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Id. at 30-38.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Case C-288/89, Stichting Collectieve Antennevoorziening Gouda and others v. Commissariaat voor de Media, 1991 E.C.R. I-4007, para. 12; Case C-353/89, Comm'n v. The Netherlands, 1991 E.C.R. I-4069, para. 16.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Meeusen, , supra note 5, at 303.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Meeusen, Johan, The Grunkin and Paul Judgment of the ECJ, or How to Strike a Delicate Balance Between Conflict of Laws, Union Citizenship and Freedom of Movement in the EC, 18 Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 186 (2010); Gerard-Rene de Groot, Towards European Conflict Rules in Matters of Personal Status, 11 Maastricht J. Eur. & Comp. L. 115 (2004).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See Abballe, Vanessa, Comparative Perspectives of the Articulation of Horizontal Interjurisdictional Relations in the United States and the European Union: The Federalization of Civil Justice, 15 New Eng. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 1, 1 (2009); see generally Alex Mills, Federalism in the European Union and the United States: Subsidiarity, Private Law, and the Conflict of Laws, 32 U. Pa. J. Int'l L. 369 (2010); Milena Sterio, The Globalization Era and the Conflict of Laws: What Europe Could Learn from the United States and Vice Versa, 13 Cardozo J. Int'l & Comp. L. 161 (2005); Michaels, supra note 9; Alex Mills, Variable Geometry, Peer Governance, and the Public International Perspective on Private International Law, in Private Int'l Law and Global Governance (Horatia Muir Watt & Diego P. Fernández Arroyo eds., 2014); Jacco Bomhoff, The Constitution of the Conflict of Laws, in Private Int'l Law and Global Governance (Horatia Muir Watt & Diego P. Fernández Arroyo eds., 2014).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ For the importance of EU conflict of law rules in an area of freedom, security, and justice, see Meeusen, supra note 5.Google Scholar

⁸¹ The EU has, interestingly, opted for a much more centralized approach than the U.S. See Abballe, supra note 79, at 24.Google Scholar

⁸² Also in the United States, interstate jurisdictional conflicts were initially governed by more traditional international private law. See Harold L. Korn, The Development of Judicial Jurisdiction in the United States: Part 1, 65 Brook. L. Rev. 935, 969–70 (1999).Google Scholar

⁸³ See, e.g., Case C-224/98, Marie-Nathalie D'Hoop v. Office national de l'emploi, 2002 E.C.R. I-6191.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Case C-208/09, Ilonka Sayn-Wittgenstein v. Landeshauptmann von Wien, 2010 E.C.R. I-13693, paras. 19–29.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Id. at para. 54.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Id. at paras. 62–71.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Id. at para. 32.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Id. at paras. 88–95.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Case C-391/09, Malgožata Runevič-Vardyn, Łukasz Paweł Wardyn v. Vilniaus miesto savivaldybės administracija, Lietuvos Respublikos teisingumo ministerija, Valstybinė lietuvių kalbos komisija, Vilniaus miesto savivaldybės administracijos Teisės departamento Civilinės metrikacijos skyrius, 2011 E.C.R. I-3787, paras. 15-27. For the three different complaints, see id. at para. 50.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Id. at para. 74.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Id. at para. 77.Google Scholar

⁹² Id. at para. 86.Google Scholar

⁹³ Id. Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Id. at paras. 89-91.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ For an overview of references to national identity in the case law of the ECJ, as well as AG Opinions, see Laurence Burgorgue-Larsen, A Huron at the Kirchberg Plateau or a Few Naïve Thoughts on Constitutional Identity in the Case-Law of the Judges of the European Union, in National Constitutional Identity and European Integration 275 (Alejandro Saiz Arnaiz & Carina Alcoberro Llivina eds., 2013).Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Case C-379/87, Anita Groener v. Minister for Education and the City of Dublin Vocational Educational Committee, 1989 E.C.R. I-3967, paras. 15–20.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Case C-36/02, Omega Spielhallen–und Automatenaufstellungs–GmbH v. Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn, 2004 E.C.R. I-9609.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Somek, Alexander, Individualism: An Essay on the Authority of the European Union 94 (2008).Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Besselink, Leonard F.M., National and Constitutional Identity Before and After Lisbon, 6 Utrecht L. Rev. 36, 41 (2010).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ See generally Scharpf, Fritz, Legitimate Diversity: The New Challenge of European Integration, in 6 The State of the European Union: Law, Politics, and Society 79 (Tanja A. Börzel & Rachel A. Cichowski eds., 2003).Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Case C-393/10, Dermod Patrick O'Brien v. Ministry of Justice, 2012 E.C.R. I-0000, para. 49.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Case C-213/07, Michaniki AE v. Ethniko Symvoulio Radiotileorasis and Ypourgos Epikrateias, 2008 E.C.R. I-9999, para. 33.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Claes, Monica, National Identity: Trump Card or Up for Negotiation?, in 4 National Constitutional Identity and European Integration (Alejandro Saiz Arnaiz & Carina Alcoberro Llivina eds., 2013). See also Armin Von Bogdandy & Stephan Schill, Overcoming Absolute Primacy: Respect for National Identity under the Lisbon Treaty, 48 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1417 (2011).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Case C-473/93, Comm'n v. Luxembourg, 1996 E.C.R. I-3207, paras. 32–36.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Cloots, Elke, National Identity in EU Law 12–13 (2015); Elke Cloots, Respecting Linguistic Identity Within the EU's Internal Market: Las. Case C-202/11, Anton Las v. Psa Antwerp NV, Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 16 April 2013, 51 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 623, 641 (2014).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Janssens, , supra note 69, at 13.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Stumer, Andrew, Homosexual Rights and the Free Movement of Persons in the European Union, 7 Int'l Trad & Bus. L. Ann. 205, 221 (2002).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Cloots, , supra note 105, at 285-86.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Baraldi, Bonini, supra note 21; Ertuna Lagrand, supra note 20.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Case C-168/91, Christos Konstantinidis v. Stadt Altensteig-Standesamt and Landratsamt Calw-Ordnungsamt, 1993 E.C.R. I-1191, para. 40; Runevič-Vardyn, Case C-391/09 at para. 89; Matthew J. Elsmore & Peter Starup, Union Citizenship-Background, Jurisprudence, and Perspective: The Past, Present, and Future of Law and Policy, 26 Y.B. Eur. L. 57, 91-92 (2007).Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Pentassuglia, Gaetano, Minority Groups and Judicial Discourse in International Law: A Comparative Perspective 67-68 (2009). Generally, the new Member States are unlikely to do more than the minimum to protect their minorities. See Will Kymlicka, National Minorities in Postcommunist Europe: The Role of International Norms and European Integration, in Ethnic Politics After Communism 191 (Zoltan Barany & Robert G. Moser eds., 2005).Google Scholar

¹¹² Runevič-Vardyn, Case C-391/09 at para. 91.Google Scholar

¹¹³ For such a claim, see Von Bogdandy & Schill, supra note 103, at 1430.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ The main analysis so far hardly considers the fundamental rights dimension. See Hanneke van Eijken, Case Note on C-391/09 Runevič-Vardyn, 49 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 809 (2012).Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Whereas the ECJ held in Garcia Avello that the national measures were disproportionate because Belgium had already allowed “derogations from application of the Belgian system of handing down surnames in situations similar to that of the children of the applicant in the main proceedings,” see Garcia Avello, Case C-142/08 at para. 44, the Lithuanian refusal to rewrite Vardyn as Wardyn was only possibly disproportionate, which was ultimately for the national court to decide, even though Lithuanian authorities normally allowed for the use of the letter W; see id. at paras. 92–93. For the inconsistent application of the proportionality test in relation to the national identity clause, see also Cloots, National Identity, supra note 105, at 308-310.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Even though the case did not contain an explicit reference to the right to private life, all name cases raise this issue. See Case C-168/91, Christos Konstantinidis v. Stadt Altensteig–Standesamt and Landratsamt Calw– Ordnungsamt, 1993 E.C.R. I-1191, para 40.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ For a powerful analysis, see J.H.H. Weiler, Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Boundaries: On Standards and Values in the Protection of Human Rights, in The European Union and Human Rights 51 (Nanette A. Neuwahl & Alan Rosas eds., 1995).Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ By “pluralism” I refer to value pluralism, not to legal pluralism. On the difference between the two, see Michel Rosenfeld, Constitutional Versus Administrative Ordering in an Era of Globalization and Privatization: Reflections on Sources of Legitimation in the Post-Westphalian Polity, 32 Cardozo L. Rev. 2339, 2340 (2010).Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Bellamy, Richard, Constitutive Citizenship versus Constitutional Rights: Republican Reflections on the EU Charter and the Human Rights Act, in Sceptical Essays on Human Rights 31 (Tom Campbell et al., eds., 2001).Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Waldron, Jeremy, Law and Disagreement 12 (1999).Google Scholar

¹²¹ Bellamy, , supra note 119.Google Scholar

¹²² Bogdandy, Von & Schill, , supra note 103, at 1425.Google Scholar

¹²³ Cloots, Elke, Baere, Geert de, & Sottiaux, Stefan, Federalism in the European Union viii (2012).Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Treaty on the European Union, art. 4(3) [hereinafter TEU].Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Chalmers, Damian, Davies, Gareth & Monti, Giorgio, European Union Law 213 (2014). For a further discussion of the fidelity principle, see Daniel Halberstam, Of Power and Responsibility: The Political Morality of Federal Systems, 90 Va. L. Rev. 731, 737 (2004).Google Scholar

¹²⁶ For this conclusion, see also Michaels, supra note 9, at 235.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Halberstam, , supra note 125.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Witte, Floris de, Sex, Drugs & EU Law: The Recognition of Moral and Ethical Diversity in EU Law, 50 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1545, 1546–51 (2013).Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Weiler, , supra note 117, at 51.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Weiler, J.H.H., In Defence of the Status-Quo: Europe's Constitutional Sonderweg, in European Constitutionalism Beyond the State 7, 20 (J.H.H. Weiler & Marlene Wind eds., 2003).Google Scholar

¹³¹ Nicolaïdis, Kalypso, European Democracy and Its Crisis, 51 J. Common Mkt. Stud. 351, 360 (2013).Google Scholar

¹³² For an interesting approach, see Cloots, National Identity supra note 105.Google Scholar

¹³³ Morijn, John, Balancing Fundamental Rights and Common Market Freedoms in Union Law: Schmidberger and Omega in the Light of the European Constitution, 12 Eur. L.J. 15, 35–36 (2006). With respect to the interests that can be invoked, the EU closely resembles the U.S. See Tobias Barrington Wolff, Interest Analysis in Interjurisdictional Marriage Disputes, 153 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2215 (2005).Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Dudgeon v. The United Kingdom, App. No. 7525/76 (Oct. 22, 1987), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/; Norris v. Ireland, App. No. 10581/83, (Oct. 26, 1988), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ See, e.g., E.B. v. France, App. No. 43546/02 (Jan. 22, 2008), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/; J.M. v. the United Kingdom, App. No. 37060/06, (Sept. 28, 2010), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Vallianatos and Others v. Greece, App. Nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, (Nov. 7, 2013), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Cloots, , supra note 105, at 285.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Koppelman, , supra note 11, at 51. One may argue that dignity requires the opening up of the institute of marriage to same sex couples. Arguments relating to dignity played a central role in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015).Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Austria, Karner v., App. No. 40016/98, para. 40 (Jul. 24, 2003), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/; Vallianatos, supra note 136, at para. 83. See also Schalk & Kopf v. Austria, App. No. 30141/04, (Jun. 24, 2010), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Koppelman, , supra note 11, at 97.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Cohen-Eliya, Moshe & Porat, Iddo, Proportionality and Constitutional Culture 134–36 (2013).Google Scholar

¹⁴² Reich, Norbert, How Proportionate Is the Proportionality Principle? Some Critical Remarks on the Use and Methodology of the Proportionality Principle in the Internal Market Case Law of the ECJ, in The European Court of Justice and the Autonomy of the Member States 105 (Hans-W Micklitz & Bruno de Witte eds., 2012).Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Witte, De, supra note 128, at 1569.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Gerards, Janneke, Pluralism, Deference and the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine, 17 Eur. L.J. 80 (2011).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ Witte, De, supra note 128, at 1571.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Sayn-Wittgenstein, Case C-208/09 at para. 87.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Garcia Avello, Case C-142/08 at para. 44. The ECJ is not always consistent about its search for consistency. See Cloots, supra note 105.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Case C-165/08, Comm'n v. Poland, 2009 E.C.R. I-6843, para. 54.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ Cloots, , supra note 105, at 286 (italics omitted).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ In relation to the debate in the U.S., this argument was made by Koppelman, supra note 11, at 109.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ Koppelman, , supra note 11; See also Linda J. Silberman, Can the Island of Hawaii Bind the World—A Comment on Same-Sex Marriage and Federalism Values, 16 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 191 (1996).Google Scholar

¹⁵² Koppelman, , supra note 11, at 106–10.Google Scholar

¹⁵³ Kymlicka, Will, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights 164 (1995).Google Scholar