A Landmark Ruling on Cross-Border Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages

Hello! Today is January 5, 2026, and welcome back to What’s up EU.

From the Ukraine reparations loan to Thierry Breton being forbidden from flying into the US, a lot has happened over the break — we have you covered in the ICYMI section. But first off, we start with an analysis of a landmark decision from the EU’s top court the recognition of same-sex marriage.

Feel free to share this newsletter with friends and colleagues, and follow us on LinkedIn.

Marie-Hélène Ludwig is a human rights lawyer and Senior Strategic Litigation Officer at ILGA-Europe, where she leads impact litigation on LGBTI rights before European courts. Previously a member of the Paris Bar, Marie-Hélène worked in international arbitration and litigation for 10 years before joining ILGA-Europe. She is Brussels-based.

On 25 November 2025, the Court of justice of the EU (CJEU) delivered a landmark judgment (in Cupriak-Trojan and Trojan v Wojewoda Mazowiecki), ruling that EU Member States must recognise a same-sex marriage lawfully concluded in another Member State by EU citizens who have exercised their free movement rights to ensure continuity of their family life. Let’s unpack.

What Is The Case About?

The case was brought by two Polish citizens (one also holding German nationality) who married in Germany, where they resided.

When they decided to return to Poland, they requested the transcription of their marriage certificate into the Polish civil registry.

Polish authorities refused, arguing that it would violate the Polish legal order, which prohibits same-sex marriages.

The spouses challenged that refusal and the Polish Supreme Administrative Court referred the case to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. The Court asked whether this refusal to transcribe the marriage was compatible with freedom of movement provisions in the TFEU read in conjunction with the right to respect for private and family life and the prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation protected by the of the EU Charter of fundamental rights.

What Did The Court Say?

The CJEU answered that a Member State cannot refuse to recognise a same-sex marriage lawfully concluded in another Member State between twoEU citizens. Otherwise, it would hinder the couple’s free movement rights.

In the Court’s view, when a couple creates a family life in one Member State, the spouses must have the certainty to be able to pursue it upon returning to their Member State of origin.

Poland’s refusal was “liable to cause serious inconvenience for those citizens at administrative, professional and private levels” and forces spouses to face “serious obstacles in regulating their family life” insofar as they are unable “in many aspects of everyday life – both in the public and in the private spheres – to rely on their marital status”.

The Court then examined whether these restrictions on people’s rights were acceptable and in line with EU fundamental rights.

It explained that the right to private and family life in the EU Charter (Article 7) must offer at least the same basic protection as the equivalent right in the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 8).

It noted that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has already clarified what that minimum level of protection requires under that provision, namely that States have a positive obligation to provide a legal framework ensuring recognition and protection of same-sex couples.

Poland has already been found in violation of this obligation by the ECtHR by failing to put in place such legal framework and refusing to recognise marriages contracted abroad in 2023 and again in 2024.. Therefore, Poland’s refusal to recognise same-sex marriages was contrary to Article 7 of the Charter.

As to how same-sex marriages should be recognised, while it is for Member States to establish appropriate procedures, they should not render it excessively difficult if not impossible for spouses to exercise their rights. They should comply with Article 21(1) of the Charter prohibiting any discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, which the CJEU said is a mandatory general principle of EU law.

As transcription is the only possible way to ensure effective recognition of marriages concluded abroad in Poland, it must be extended to same-sex couples. Otherwise, it constitutes discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

The judgment further advances the protection established in the Coman case, where the CJEU ruled that Member States must recognise a same-sex marriage for the purpose of granting a derived residence right to the third-country national spouse of an EU citizen.

Now the CJEU made clear that this obligation is required for all legal purposes. Also, this time, the Court based its reasoning not just on the right to private and family life (Article 7 of the Charter) but on a strong analysis of the prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation (Article 21), making clear that the case raises serious fundamental rights issues.

What Does It Mean for Same-Sex Couples in the EU?

For same-sex couples who have legally married in a Member State and then move or return to another Member State, the CJEU’s judgment ensures that their marital status must be effectively recognised. They cannot be forced to live as unmarried simply because they cross an internal EU border.

This recognition should trigger the full set of rights attached to marital status under national law, including residency rights, access to social security, taxation, inheritance, next-of-kin recognition, recognition of married name, health-care decision rights, pension entitlements, property registration and potentially parental rights where applicable.

Couples in Member States that still do not provide for any legal recognition or protection for same-sex couples, i.e. Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Lithuania and Poland, will experience the biggest change as marrying abroad is currently the only way to secure legal recognition.

Other EU countries that do not have marriage equality (Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Hungary, Italy and Latvia) will also need to adjust their practice.

However, the CJEU expressly said that this judgment does not entail an obligation for Member States to provide in their national law for marriage equality, which remains a matter of national competence. What EU law does require is that Member States respect free movement guarantees attached to EU citizenship and, in doing so comply with fundamental rights.

CBAM • The EU’s carbon border tax (CBAM) entered into effect on January 1, 2026.

CBAM applies to imports a carbon price equivalent to that of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) in order to ensure fair competition and avoid carbon leakage to less‑regulated countries, in six carbon‑intensive sectors: cement, aluminium, steel, fertilisers, hydrogen and electricity.

Importers bringing in more than 50 tonnes of cement, iron and steel, aluminium or fertiliser, and all importers of electricity or hydrogen, must hold a valid authorisation at the time of import. Importers that have not yet applied need to do so quickly to avoid disruption, delays or penalties, and in any case no later than 31 March 2026.

REPARATIONS LOAN • On December 19, the European Council agreed on a 90 billion euro loan to Ukraine by joint borrowing guaranteed by the EU budget.

The Commission’s plan to use some of the Russian central bank’s 210 billion euros in frozen assets in the EU, which received strong support from Germany, was set aside due to Belgium’s sustained opposition to the plan over concerns about its legality.

The bulk of the frozen assets are held by Belgium-based clearance house Euroclear.In addition, Hungary, Czechia, and Slovakia will not participate in the financial effort.

MERCOSUR • On December 19, the Commission announced the EU-Mercosur trade deal’s signature would be delayed from late-December until (at least) January.

The delay comes after last‑minute resistance from Italy joined long‑standing objections from France and several other Member States and large‑scale farmer protests in Brussels. Thousands of farmers and hundreds of tractors demanded stronger protection for EU agriculture and a more generous common agricultural policy (CAP) in the next long term EU budget.

BRETON • On December 24, the US imposed visa bans on former EU internal market commissioner Thierry Breton and several other European officials and advisers, accusing them of backing digital rules that disadvantage major American tech companies and “fomenting censorship of American speech”.

The measure further adds to existing friction over the Digital Markets Act, data rules and digital taxation. Competition Commissioner Teresa Ribeira said in an interview with the FT the EU should “listen but never bow” to US demands on digital (and green) regulation.

COMBUSTION ENGINES • On December 16, the Commission proposed rolling back the EU’s (de facto) ban on new combustion-engine car sales from 2035. Germany, Italy and major carmakers worried about competitiveness versus Chinese and US rivals.

Rather than insisting that all new cars be zero‑emission by that date, the proposal would require a 90% reduction in average CO2 emissions compared with 2021 levels, leaving room for a limited share of plug‑in hybrids and combustion cars running on carbon-neutral fuels

Among the changes are more adaptable CO2 standards, provisions to count decarbonisation efforts in materials and fuels, and the ability for manufacturers to meet targets over multi‑year periods.

• Spotted thanks to LSE’s Maarten De Ridder, this OECD paper asks whether it’s time for a regulatory reset? Notably, it shows that EU countries spend twice as much labour time on compliance tasks as R&D.
• The Economist argues that Britain should pursue flexible, partial single-market alignment and limited free movement while the EU relaxes rigid red lines so both sides can rebuild a closer post-Brexit partnership.