In November 2025, the CJEU delivered a landmark judgment in the Cupriak-Trojan v. Voivode of Mazovia case, imposing on Member States an obligation to recognize the legal effects of same-sex marriages in the context of the freedom of movement within the European Union.
Key conclusions arising from the judgment
A Member State whose law does not provide for same-sex marriage may not refuse to recognize such a union legally entered into in another EU country, or its transcription into the national civil-status register, if the marriage was entered into in the context of exercising the right to free movement and residence.
Refusal to recognize a marriage constitutes a serious obstacle to exercising the rights arising from EU citizenship. Articles 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) preclude such restrictions because they complicate the spouses’ everyday lives in areas such as social security, taxation, employment rights and family benefits.
The Court emphasized that failure to recognize the marital status of same-sex couples leads to different treatment compared with heterosexual couples, which constitutes discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, prohibited by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Articles 7 and 21).
Arguments by a Member State concerning the protection of public order or national identity cannot justify refusing to recognize the legal effects of a marriage entered into abroad if this violates EU citizens’ fundamental rights.
Recognizing the legal effects of a foreign marriage in the specific context of a couple’s life does not mean an obligation to introduce same-sex marriage into the state’s domestic legal order (for example, by changing the definition of marriage in the Family and Guardianship Code).
This judgment establishes a minimum standard of legal protection that each Member State must provide by offering administrative mechanisms enabling the registration and confirmation of the family status of same-sex couples for the purposes of EU law.
This judgment unequivocally confirms that although family law remains within the competence of the Member States, they must exercise those powers in accordance with EU law, particularly the principle of free movement of persons and non-discrimination.
Does this judgment force Poland to introduce same-sex marriage?
No, the CJEU judgment in the Cupriak-Trojan case does not force Poland to introduce same-sex marriage into its domestic legal order.
Poland remains sovereign in defining marriage in its domestic law; however, following this judgment, it may not refuse to recognize the legal effects of such marriages entered into in other EU countries if the lack of recognition would make it more difficult for EU citizens to live and settle in the territory of the Republic of Poland.
The Court clearly emphasized that recognizing a marriage legally entered into abroad does not mean an obligation to amend domestic marriage regulations. The obligation imposed on Poland is functional in nature. This means that the state must recognize the marital status of a same-sex couple only to the extent necessary for them to fully exercise the rights arising from EU citizenship, such as freedom of movement and residence.
How does the judgment relate to the Polish Constitution and Article 18?
The CJEU judgment does not challenge the wording of Article 18 of the Constitution as the basis of national family law, but it prohibits using it as a barrier preventing EU citizens from exercising their rights in Poland.
The CJEU explicitly noted that the judgment does not infringe the state’s competence to define marriage in its domestic law. Recognizing the legal effects of a foreign marriage certificate is functional in nature and concerns specific situations (such as freedom of movement), meaning that there is no automatic change to Article 18 of the Constitution or the Family and Guardianship Code.
Critics of the judgment argue that the order to transcribe a marriage may be a form of pressure to change the Polish model of marriage. They also point to the Constitutional Tribunal judgment (case reference K 18/04), which confirmed the primacy of the Constitution over EU law, as well as Protocol No. 30 to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which was intended to limit the CJEU’s ability to rule on the incompatibility of Polish administrative practices with the Charter.
RM at the Parliamentary Youth Team