ECJ Opinion Limits Residence Rights for Civil Partners in Romania

The case arose after Romania’s court of appeal requested an interpretation of EU regulations regarding the rights of same-sex partners. Although Medina acknowledged that gay couples in Romania face a significantly worse position than opposite-sex couples—citing the country’s low 18 percent ranking on the ILGA Europe Rainbow Map—she maintained that the desire to live together does not override current residency requirements. The opinion distinguishes this situation from a 2025 ruling involving Poland, which forced the state to recognize same-sex marriages to uphold freedom of movement under the Treaty of Lisbon.

Medina argued that the British woman’s case lacks the necessary foundation of a pre-existing life together in another member state. She noted that EU law is designed to protect established family units rather than facilitate the formation of new ones. If the couple had lived together in Italy before returning to Romania, the situation would qualify as a protected 'U-turn' scenario, where an EU citizen exercises their right to move and subsequently returns home with acquired family rights. While this opinion is non-binding, the European Court of Justice typically follows the advocate general’s guidance in its final rulings.