The Court of
Justice, in answer to a question referred to it by a national court declared that the refusal to recognise the
marriage between two citizens of the Union, legally contracted in another Member State, where they have exercised their freedom of movement and residence, “is contrary to EU law because it infringes that freedom and the right to respect for private and
family life,” as a note explains. Member States are therefore obliged to recognise, for the purposes of exercising the rights conferred by Union law, the marital status legally acquired in another Member State.
The spouses in question, “as EU
citizens, enjoy the freedom to move and reside within the territory of the Member States and the right to lead a
normal family life when exercising that freedom and upon returning to their Member State of origin.” Thus, when they establish a family life in a host Member State, “in particular by virtue of marriage, they must have
the certainty to be able to pursue that family life upon returning to their Member State of origin.”
The Court emphasises, however, that this obligation does not imply the introduction of same-sex marriage into national law. Moreover, the Member States have a margin of discretion to choose the procedures for recognising such a
marriage. In this specific case, however, given that transcription is the only means provided by Polish law that allows a marriage concluded in another Member State to be effectively recognised by the administrative authorities, “Poland is obliged to apply it indiscriminately to marriages between persons of the same sex and those between persons of the opposite sex.”
Enthusiastic about the judgment is Caterina Morace, a 5 Star Movement MEP: “This ruling sweeps away much of the propaganda that the LGBT community has endured for years,” the MEP emphasizes. “It places heterosexual and gay unions on the same legal and moral footing, as it should.” According to Morace, “in Poland, as well as in Hungary, Bulgaria, and other member states, we are still at the year zero of rights. This decision, therefore, has consequences on the legislative systems of all member states as the Court’s interpretation of current European law is clear and must be respected.”
At present, Italy, she recalls, “transcribes gay marriages celebrated in European countries into civil unions, which, however, entail a reduction in the rights and duties of the two spouses. The time has come to approve equal marriage in our country as well, because second-class unions cannot exist — neither in Italy nor in Europe.”
Justice, in answer to a question referred to it by a national court declared that the refusal to recognise the
marriage between two citizens of the Union, legally contracted in another Member State, where they have exercised their freedom of movement and residence, “is contrary to EU law because it infringes that freedom and the right to respect for private and
family life,” as a note explains. Member States are therefore obliged to recognise, for the purposes of exercising the rights conferred by Union law, the marital status legally acquired in another Member State.
The spouses in question, “as EU
citizens, enjoy the freedom to move and reside within the territory of the Member States and the right to lead a
normal family life when exercising that freedom and upon returning to their Member State of origin.” Thus, when they establish a family life in a host Member State, “in particular by virtue of marriage, they must have
the certainty to be able to pursue that family life upon returning to their Member State of origin.”
The Court emphasises, however, that this obligation does not imply the introduction of same-sex marriage into national law. Moreover, the Member States have a margin of discretion to choose the procedures for recognising such a
marriage. In this specific case, however, given that transcription is the only means provided by Polish law that allows a marriage concluded in another Member State to be effectively recognised by the administrative authorities, “Poland is obliged to apply it indiscriminately to marriages between persons of the same sex and those between persons of the opposite sex.”
Enthusiastic about the judgment is Caterina Morace, a 5 Star Movement MEP: “This ruling sweeps away much of the propaganda that the LGBT community has endured for years,” the MEP emphasizes. “It places heterosexual and gay unions on the same legal and moral footing, as it should.” According to Morace, “in Poland, as well as in Hungary, Bulgaria, and other member states, we are still at the year zero of rights. This decision, therefore, has consequences on the legislative systems of all member states as the Court’s interpretation of current European law is clear and must be respected.”
At present, Italy, she recalls, “transcribes gay marriages celebrated in European countries into civil unions, which, however, entail a reduction in the rights and duties of the two spouses. The time has come to approve equal marriage in our country as well, because second-class unions cannot exist — neither in Italy nor in Europe.”
