Cupriak-Trojan and Trojan v Wojewoda Mazowiecki: landmark CJEU ruling on cross-border recognition of same-sex marriages

Spendenbutton / Faire un don
Gender Law Newsletter FRI 2026#1, 01.03.2026 - Newsletter abonnieren

EUROPEAN UNION: FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND HUMAN RIGHTS (GUEST CONTRIBUTION)

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 25 November 2025 Jakub Cupriak-Trojan, Mateusz Trojan v Wojewoda Mazowieck (C?713/23): Guest Contribution of Marie-Hélène Ludwig, Senior Strategic Litigation Officer, ILGA Europe

On 25 November, the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter 'the Court') delivered a landmark decision in Case C-713/23 confirming that EU Member States must recognise same-sex marriages lawfully concluded in other Member States by Union citizens who have exercised their free movement rights.

I. How did the case reach the Court?

The case was brought by two Polish citizens (one also holding German nationality) who married in Germany, where they resided. When they decided to return to Poland, they requested the transcription of their marriage certificate into the Polish civil registry. Polish authorities refused, arguing that it would violate the Polish legal order, which prohibits same-sex marriages. The spouses challenged that refusal and the Polish Supreme Administrative Court referred the case to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The domestic court asked whether this refusal to transcribe the marriage was compatible with Articles 20 and 21(1) TFEU (freedom of movement) read in conjunction with Articles 7 (right to respect for private and family life) and 21 (prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereinafter 'the Charter').

II. What did the Court say in its ruling?

The Court answered that a Member State cannot refuse to recognise a same-sex marriage lawfully concluded in another Member State between two Union citizens. Otherwise, it would hinder the couple’s free movement rights. In the Court’s view, when a couple creates a family life in one Member State, the spouses must have the certainty to be able to pursue it upon returning to their Member State of origin. Poland’s refusal was “liable to cause serious inconvenience for those citizens at administrative, professional and private levels” (para. 51) and forces spouses to face “serious obstacles in regulating their family life” insofar as they are unable “in many aspects of everyday life – both in the public and in the private spheres – to rely on their marital status” (para. 53).

The Court next assessed whether such obstacles could be justified and notably complied with the Charter. It recalled that Article 7 of the Charter has the same meaning and scope as Article 8 ECHR, which constitutes a minimum threshold of protection, and that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has held that under that provision, States have a positive obligation to provide a legal framework ensuring recognition and protection of same-sex couples. Poland has already been found in violation of this obligation by failing to put in place such legal framework and refusing to recognise marriages contracted abroad (ECtHR, judgment of 12 December 2023, Przybyszewska and Others v. Poland, nos 11454/17 et al.; ECtHR, judgment of 19 September 2024, Formela and Others v. Poland, nos. 58828/12 et al.). Therefore, Poland’s refusal to recognise same-sex marriages was contrary to Article 7 of the Charter.

As to how same-sex marriages should be recognised, while it is for Member States to establish appropriate procedures, the Court ruled that they should not render it excessively difficult if not impossible for spouses to exercise their rights and they should comply with Article 21(1) of the Charter prohibiting any discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, which the Court said is a mandatory general principle of EU law. In the case of Poland, as transcription is the only possible way to ensure effective recognition of marriages concluded abroad, it must be extended to same-sex couples. Otherwise, it constitutes discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

III. How does this judgment advance existing the Court’s case law?

The Court had already ruled on the topic of cross-border recognition of same-sex marriages. This judgment further advances the protection established in Coman (judgment of 5 June 2018, C-673/16)[1] in which the Court had ruled that Member States must recognise a same-sex marriage for the specific purpose of granting a derived residence right to the third-country national spouse of a Union citizen who had exercised free movement. Now, in the Cupriak-Trojan and Trojan case, the Court made clear that this obligation is required for all legal purposes.

Also, this time, the Court based its reasoning not just on Article 7 of the Charter but on a strong analysis of Article 21 of the Charter, making clear that the case raises serious fundamental rights issues as the non-recognition was grounded on a discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Court pointed out for the first time in that judgment that the prohibition on discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation enshrined in that provision is “mandatory as a general principle of EU law” (para. 70).

This judgment is thus a significant development in the Court’s approach to the free movement rights of same-sex spouses across the EU.

IV. What does it mean concretely for same-sex couples in the EU?

1.) Does this mean same-sex marriage is now legal everywhere in the EU?
 
For same-sex couples who married legally in a Member State and subsequently move or return to another Member State, this decision ensures that their marital status must be effectively recognised. They cannot be forced to live as unmarried simply because they cross an internal EU border.

However, the Court expressly said that this judgment does not entail an obligation for Member States to provide in their national law for marriage equality, which remains a matter of national competence (para. 61). What EU law does require is that Member States respect free movement guarantees attached to EU citizenship and, in doing so comply with fundamental rights.

2.) Are all Member States affected, including those that do not allow same sex marriage?
 
Yes. Countries whose national laws do not allow same-sex marriage must still recognise marriages performed elsewhere in the EU to ensure EU free movement rights and the fundamental right to private and family life are guaranteed.

Couples in Member States that still do not provide for any legal recognition or protection for same-sex couples, i.e. Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Lithuania and Poland, will experience the biggest change as marrying abroad is currently the only way to secure legal recognition. Other EU countries that do not have marriage equality (Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Hungary, Italy and Latvia) will also need to adjust their practice.

3.) Who is covered?
 
The judgment applies only to EU citizens who lawfully concluded a marriage in an EU Member State in which they exercised their freedom to move and reside. It does not address same-sex marriages concluded in third countries (including if they were later recognised as marriage in a Member State). According to scholars specialising in this topic, it would however appear difficult to justify excluding same-sex marriages contracted in non-EU States from the scope of recognition[2].

Likewise, the judgment applies to marriages concluded by EU citizens and does not directly regulate marriages involving a non-EU spouse – a situation covered by the Coman (C-673/16) judgment[3] mentioned above, in which the Court decided that Member States have an obligation to grant the third-country-national spouse of an EU citizen a residence permit in the same way they would grant permits to different-sex couples. Although Romania has yet to implement this judgment, all couples in the same situation across the EU can rely on it.

4.) What does “recognition” of a marriage entail?
 
The judgment requires Member States to adapt their national legal framework and create a non-discriminatory and workable administrative procedure to recognise same-sex marriages performed in other EU countries, if they don’t have one already.

The ruling allows flexibility in procedures, such as transcription, registration or an equivalent mechanism, as long as the process is not discriminatory or burdensome and ensures full recognition of the marriage. A state cannot create obstacles that delay, discourage or deny recognition. In the case of Poland, the Court considered that the transcription of marriage certificates in the civil register is the only way for marriage to be recognised in that country.

This recognition should trigger the full set of rights attached to marital status under national law to be effective and meaningful. This may include, depending on the rights marriage grants in domestic laws: residency rights, access to social benefits, taxation, inheritance, next-of-kin status, recognition of married name, health-care decision rights, pension entitlements, property registration and potentially parental rights.

Member States should indeed not offer a limited or symbolic form of recognition that leaves couples without granting substantive rights attached to marriage.

V. What are the wider legal and political implications?

This judgment builds on earlier judgments of the Court concerning the free movement of LGBTI people. Subsequent to Coman, the Court had also ruled in V.M.A. v. Stolichna obshtina, rayon ‘Pancharevo’ (judgment of 14 December 2021, C-490/20)[4] that EU Member States are required to recognise, for the purposes of EU free movement law, the familial ties established in another Member State between a child and her same-sex parents. The Court required Bulgaria to issue to the child an identity card or passport stating her nationality and her surname as it appeared on her Spanish birth certificate. Finally, the Court ruled in Mirin  (jugement of 4 October 2024, C-4/23)[5] that legal gender recognition obtained in one Member State must be recognised by others. The Court required Romania to transcribe in the birth certificate of the applicant, a trans man with dual British-Romanian citizenship, the correct name and gender acquired further to a legal gender recognition procedure while he resided in the UK (when it was still treated as an EU Member State).

The Cupriak-Trojan and Trojan judgment thus confirms a trend toward consistent cross-border protection of LGBTI persons and their families in the EU. While it does not mandate marriage equality, it strengthens the legal protection of same sex couples, prevents governments from denying recognition, provides clarity and security for families who move, work and live across borders and may encourage national reforms and future EU initiatives (such as the European Commission’s proposal for a Regulation on the recognition of parenthood between Member States).

[1]  Editor's note: see Newsletter 2018#4.
[2] Alina Tryfonidou, “Cross-Border Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages in the EU: Full Recognition or Mere Effects?”, The EAPIL blog, 9 December 2025.
[3] Editor's note: see Newsletter 2018#4.
[4]  Editor's note: see Newsletter 2022#2.
[5] Editor's note: see Newsletter 2024#4.

Direct access to the judgment (https://eur-lex.europa.eu)