Civil partnership from abroad not enough to stay in EU country, according to ECJ preliminary opinion
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 new opinion from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) says that a civil partnership with an EU citizen is not enough in itself to get residence status in an EU country.
The opinion, which is usually followed by the court, from advocate general Laila Medina on Thursday (September 17), was in response to Romania’s court of appeal, which asked for an interpretation of EU rules.
A British national’s right to stay in Romania was challenged, despite her partner living there.
The two women are a civil partnership under Italian law, where they travelled to legalise their union. The pair could not do it in Romania, since the country forbids gay marriage.
Romania is among the most homophobic EU countries, scoring 18 percent in the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA Europe)’s Rainbow Map , compared to the EU’s average of 42.
Gay couples are in “a structurally different and significantly worse position than opposite-sex couples,” admitted Medina. Yet the wish to live together, “however understandable,” is not enough to allow the British citizen to stay in the EU.
In a similar case , the ECJ ruled in November 2025 that Poland has to recognise same-sex marriages from other EU countries to respect citizens’ freedom of movement guaranteed by article 21(1) of the treaty of Lisbon.
As a result, Poland currently recognises 228 married same-sex couples who took their vows abroad.
The case of the British woman is different, argued Medina, since the partners never lived in Italy. EU rules would indeed protect the Romanian citizen’s family life formed in another country when the couple moved back.
If they did do so, it would be a “U-turn” situation: an EU citizen moves abroad, acquires some rights in another member state, and goes back with the right to preserve them in their home country.
Judging by two 2014 rulings, Medina said, the Lisbon Treaty is “concerned with protecting a family life that already exists… not with favouring the future development of a family life that has not yet taken shape.”
The opinion is a non-binding proposal of a legal solution that the ECJ takes into account in the later, binding, phases of the trial.
Zuzanna Stawiska is a junior reporter covering European affairs. She also writes stories for the European Correspondent.
