CJEU Case C-713/23 / Jugment
-
CJEU Case C-713/23 / Jugment
Key facts of the case:
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the Union – Articles 20 and 21 TFEU – Articles 7 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States – Union citizens of the same sex who have entered into a marriage in the exercise of that right – Obligation on the part of the Member State of origin to recognise and transcribe the marriage certificate in the civil register – National legislation which does not permit such recognition or transcription on the ground that same-sex marriage is not allowed
Outcome of the case:
On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:
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.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter
37. As a preliminary point, it should be noted that the question referred for a preliminary ruling concerns Articles 20 and 21 TFEU, read in the light of the Charter and Article 2(2) of Directive 2004/38. However, the dispute in the main proceedings concerns the request made by the spouses at issue in the main proceedings to have their marriage certificate that was issued in Germany transcribed in the Polish civil register in order to have their status as married persons recognised in Poland, which is the Member State of which they are nationals. The subject matter of that dispute does not, therefore, come within the scope of that directive, which governs only the conditions determining whether a Union citizen can enter and reside in Member States other than that of which he or she is a national (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 June 2018, Coman and Others, C‑673/16, EU:C:2018:385, paragraph 20 and the case-law cited).
38. In those circumstances, it must be held that, by its question, the referring court is asking, in essence, whether Article 20 and Article 21(1) TFEU, read in the light of Article 7 and Article 21(1) of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, which, on the ground that the law of that Member State does not authorise marriage between persons of the same sex, does not permit the recognition of a marriage between two same-sex nationals of that Member State lawfully concluded 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.
...
55. That said, it is established case-law that a restriction on the free movement of persons, which, as in the case in the main proceedings, is independent of the nationality of the persons concerned, may be justified if it is based on objective public-interest considerations and if it is proportionate to a legitimate objective pursued by national law (judgment of 5 June 2018, Coman and Others, C‑673/16, EU:C:2018:385, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited). Furthermore, where a measure of a Member State which restricts a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the FEU Treaty is justified by an overriding reason in the public interest recognised by EU law, such a measure must be regarded as implementing EU law, within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter, such that it must comply with the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter (see, to that effect, judgments of 30 April 2014, Pfleger and Others, C‑390/12, EU:C:2014:281, paragraph 36, and of 10 July 2025, INTERZERO and Others, C‑254/23, EU:C:2025:569, paragraph 105).
...
59. In addition, pursuant to Article 9 of the Charter, the right to marry and the right to found a family are to be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of those rights.
...
63. It must be added, in view of the case-law referred to in paragraph 55 above, that a national measure which is liable to obstruct the exercise of freedom of movement for persons may be justified only where such a measure is consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter, it being the task of the Court to ensure that those rights are respected, and, in particular, with the right to respect for private and family life, referred to in Article 7 thereof, and with the prohibition of any discrimination based on sexual orientation, referred to in Article 21(1) thereof (see, to that effect, judgments of 5 June 2018, Coman and Others, C‑673/16, EU:C:2018:385, paragraph 47; of 14 December 2021, Stolichna obshtina, rayon ‘Pancharevo’, C‑490/20, EU:C:2021:1008, paragraph 58; and of 4 October 2024, Mirin, C‑4/23, EU:C:2024:845, paragraph 62).
64. In that regard, in so far as concerns the right to respect for private and family life guaranteed in Article 7 of the Charter, it follows from the Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 17) that, in accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter, the rights guaranteed in Article 7 thereof have the same meaning and the same scope as those guaranteed in Article 8 ECHR, the latter provision constituting a minimum threshold of protection (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 October 2024, Mirin, C‑4/23, EU:C:2024:845, paragraph 63 and the case-law cited).
...
67. Therefore, the failure to recognise the marriage concluded by two Union citizens of the same sex in accordance with the law of the Member State in which those Union citizens have exercised their freedom to move and reside, on the ground that the law of the Member State of which they are nationals, in which those Union citizens wish to pursue their private and family life, does not allow marriage between persons of the same sex, is contrary to the fundamental rights which Article 7 of the Charter guarantees to same-sex couples.
...
70. Furthermore, when exercising their discretion to establish appropriate procedures for recognising a marriage entered into by two Union citizens in the exercise of their freedom to move and reside within another Member State, the Member States are required to comply with Article 21(1) of the Charter. In that regard, it should be pointed out that the prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, enshrined in that provision, is mandatory as a general principle of EU law (see, by analogy, judgments of 15 January 2014, Association de médiation sociale, C‑176/12, EU:C:2014:2, paragraph 47; of 17 April 2018, Egenberger, C‑414/16, EU:C:2018:257, paragraph 76; and of 22 January 2019, Cresco Investigation, C‑193/17, EU:C:2019:43, paragraph 76).
...
75. While it is true, as recalled in paragraph 69 above, that Member States enjoy a margin of discretion as regards the procedures for recognising marriages concluded by Union citizens when exercising their freedom of movement and residence within another Member State, the lack of a procedure for recognition equivalent to that granted to heterosexual couples constitutes discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation prohibited by Article 21(1) of the Charter. It follows that where a Member State chooses, within that margin of discretion, to provide, in its national law, for a single procedure for recognising marriages concluded by Union citizens in the exercise of their freedom to move and reside within another Member State, such as, in the present case, the transcription of the marriage certificate in the civil register, that Member State is required to apply that procedure without distinction to marriages between persons of the same sex and to those between persons of the opposite sex.
76. Lastly, it should be pointed out that both Article 20 and Article 21(1) TFEU and Article 7 and Article 21(1) of the Charter are sufficient in themselves and do not need to be made more specific by provisions of EU or national law to confer on individuals rights which they may rely on as such. Consequently, if the referring court were to find that it is not possible to interpret its national law in conformity with EU law, it would be required to ensure, within its jurisdiction, the judicial protection for individuals flowing from those provisions, and to ensure their full effectiveness by disapplying, if need be, the national provisions concerned (see, to that effect, judgments of 17 April 2018, Egenberger, C‑414/16, EU:C:2018:257, paragraphs 78 and 79, and of 3 June 2025, Kinsa, C‑460/23, EU:C:2025:392, paragraph 72).
77. In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Article 20 and Article 21(1) TFEU, read in the light of Article 7 and Article 21(1) of the Charter, 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.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)