In Wojewoda Mazowiecki [2025] EUECJ C-713/23 (in French), the Grand Chamber of the ECJ was asked to rule on a request from a same-sex couple, Jakub Cupriak-Trojan and Mateusz Trojan, for their marriage, contracted in Germany, to be registered in the State marriage register in Poland [2]. Mr Cupriak-Trojan, a dual Polish and German citizen, and Mr Trojan, a Polish citizen, were married in Berlin on 6 June 2018. According to the reference order, at the time the preliminary ruling was requested, they were living in Germany but intended to travel to Poland and live there as a married couple [20].

At their marriage, Mr Cupriak-Trojan changed Mr Trojan’s surname to the second part of his own. At Mr Cupriak-Trojan’s request, the Head of the Civil Registry Office in Warsaw issued a decision changing his surname in the same way in Poland [21]. Mr Cupriak-Trojan then applied to the head of the civil registry office in Warsaw for their German marriage certificate to be entered in the Polish civil registry; in August 2019, however, the application was rejected on the grounds that Polish law did not provide for same-sex marriage [22].

The domestic proceedings

The couple appealed the decision but were unsuccessful on the grounds that, in Poland, marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and it would therefore be illegal for the civil registry to register two men as spouses [23]. After an unsuccessful appeal to the local administrative court [24], a further appeal was lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court [25]; however, the Court decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following question to the Grand Chamber of the ECJ for a preliminary ruling:

“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 with Article 2(2) of Directive 2004/38, be interpreted as precluding the competent authorities of a Member State of which a Union citizen is a national who has entered into a marriage with another Union citizen (a person of the same sex) in one of the Member States, in accordance with the legislation of that latter State, from refusing to recognise that marriage certificate and to record it in the national civil register, thereby preventing those persons from residing in that State under the civil status resulting from their marriage and under the same surname, on the grounds that the law of the host state does not provide for same-sex marriage?” [36].

The Grand Chamber ruling

The Grand Chamber noted that the referring court was essentially asking whether Articles 20 and 21(1) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [TFEU], read in the light of Articles 7 and 21(1) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as overriding the domestic law of a Member State that does not recognise a marriage between two nationals of the same sex legally entered into during the exercise of their freedom of movement and residence in another Member State because its own domestic law does not permit same-sex marriage [38].

Both applicants were EU citizens [39]; EU citizenship constituted the fundamental status of nationals of Member States [40]; and it gave every EU citizen a fundamental and individual right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and restrictions laid down by the TFEU and the measures adopted to give effect to them [41]. A national of a Member State who had moved to reside in another Member State could avail him- or herself of the rights attached to that status [42] – and those rights included the right to lead a normal family life in the host Member State with his or her family members, including his or her spouse [43]. Further, the Court had previously found that there was an obligation to grant a derived right of residence to the spouse of a Union citizen where that spouse was a third-country national of the same sex as the Union citizen and where the marriage had been legally concluded in the host Member State [45] – a fortiori, it was the case where both partners were EU citizens [46].

Under current EU law, rules relating to marriage fell within the competence of the Member States [47]; however, in exercising that competence, each Member State had to respect Union law and, in particular, the provisions of the TFEU on the freedom of movement within the EU by recognising the status of persons established in another Member State in accordance with the law of that State [48]. In the present case, the refusal by the Polish authorities to recognise the applicants’ married status prevented them from continuing their family life with the benefit of a legally certain and enforceable status and forced them to live as single persons [52]. Therefore, the refusal by the authorities of a Member State to recognise the marriage of two same-sex Union citizens entered into in another Member State was an obstacle to the exercise of their right to free movement under Article 21(1) TFEU [54].

The Grand Chamber ruled as follows at [78]:

“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 follows:

they preclude the application of legislation by a Member State which, on the grounds that the law of that Member State does not permit same-sex marriage, does not permit the recognition of a marriage between two nationals of the same sex legally entered into during the exercise of their freedom of movement and residence in another Member State, in which they have developed or consolidated a family life, nor does it preclude the transcription of the marriage certificate in the civil register of the first Member State, where such transcription is the only means provided for by that Member State to allow such recognition.”

For a comment on the ruling, see Niwa Limbu in the Catholic Herald: Catholic Poland and the European Court’s decision on same-sex marriage.