interpretation of Article 20(2)(a) and Article 21(1) TFEU, read in the light of Article 7 and Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), and of Article 2(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77, and corrigendum OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35).
Jakub Cupriak-Trojan and Mateusz Trojan v Wojewoda Mazowiecki is a 2025 case of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that affirmed recognition of same-sex marriages legally performed in EU countries regardless of whether either spouse is an EU citizen.[1][2]
The ruling expands upon the 2018 ECJ case Coman and Others, which affirmed residency rights in EU countries to the spouse of an EU citizen who is exercising their right to freedom of movement and if the marriage was legally performed in an EU member state.[3]
Directive 2004/38/EC (the Citizens’ Rights Directive or Free Movement Directive) defines this right. It grants the same freedom to family members of Union citizens (including spouses), even if they are not nationals of an EU member state. "Family members" (Article 2(2)) include the spouse, the registered partner, a child under 21, or a dependent child or parent (of the Union citizen or partner). There is a second category of "any other family member", which can be included at the discretion of national legislation.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union affirms the freedom of movement and of residence (Article 45) and furthermore guarantees the right to respect for private and family life (Article 7), guarantees the right to marry (Article 9) and prohibits discrimination based on, among other grounds, sex and sexual orientation (Article 21).
Case background
Mateusz Trojan, a Polish citizen, had married a Polish-German citizen, Jakub Cupriak-Trojan, in 2018 in Germany, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2017. The couple wished to relocate to Poland and file their marriage certificate with a local court, but were refused by the Head of the Warsaw Civil Registry Office due to the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. The couple unsuccessfully challenged the refusal before the governor of Masovian Voivodeship, then in Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw, arguing for recognition on the grounds of both countries being EU members. After appealing to the Supreme Administrative Court of Poland, the court referred the case to the ECJ to seek clarification on interpretation of Article 20(2)(a) and Article 21(1) TFEU, read in the light of Article 7 and Article 21(1) of the Charter. The judgment is based on the case Coman v General Inspectorate for Immigration of the Ministry of Internal Affairs [Romania][4], which was decided in 2018[5]. Nevertheless, it also cites cases considered at the ECtHR[6]:
Andersen v. Poland (2025)[7] concerning the registration of a foreign marriage certificate and the practical hardships of non-recognition (such as the necessity of seeking judicial protection for ordinary needs, existing in a legal limbo, and the forced adjustment of behaviour to secure alternative legal recognition) impacting a non-resident of Poland[8],
Formela v. Poland (2024)[9] regarding the state's obligation to ensure that the applicants have a specific legal framework providing for the recognition and protection of their unions[10],
Przybyszewska and Others v. Poland (2023)[11] regarding the recognition of civil partnerships in Poland, similar to Oliari v. Italy and Fedotova v. Russia, but concerning Poland.
Preliminary questions
The question referred by the Supreme Administrative Court of Poland to the European Court of Justice on 23 November 2023 was:
‘Must the provisions of Article 20(2)(a) and Article 21(1) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 7 and Article 21(1) of the [Charter] and Article 2(2) of Directive [2004/38,] be interpreted as precluding the competent authorities of a Member State, where a citizen of the Union who is a national of that State has contracted a marriage with another citizen of the Union (a person of the same sex) in a Member State in accordance with the legislation of that State, from refusing to recognise that marriage certificate and transcribe it into the national civil registry, which prevents those persons from residing in the State in question with the marital status of a married couple and under the same surname, on the grounds that the law of the host Member State does not provide for same-sex marriage?’
Ruling
A hearing was held on 3 December 2024. The Advocate General Jean Richard de la Tour gave his formal opinion on 3 April 2025. The Court followed the opinion and ruled as follows in Grand Chamber on 25 November 2025:
Article 20 and Article 21(1) TFEU, read in the light of Article 7 and Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, on the ground that the law of that Member State does not allow marriage between persons of the same sex, does not permit the recognition of a marriage between two same-sex nationals of that Member State concluded lawfully in the exercise of their freedom to move and reside within another Member State, in which they have created or strengthened a family life, or the transcription for that purpose of the marriage certificate in the civil register of the first Member State, where that transcription is the only means provided for by that Member State for such recognition.
Aftermath
The ruling requires Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and Slovakia, all of which are EU member states which maintain constitutional bans on same-sex marriage and do not maintain some form of civil partnership registry or same-sex couples, to recognize those same-sex marriages legally conducted in other member states. It does not require any member state to perform said marriages.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
