Adviser denies same-sex union abroad offers a ticket to stay in EU

An EU legal expert found a British woman’s civil union with her Romanian partner did not secure residence rights just because they formalized their relationship in Italy.(CN) — A trip to Italy made their union legal but shouldn’t give a same-sex couple the right to live together in Romania, an adviser to the EU’s top court said Thursday.Advocate General Laila Medina advised the Court of Justice of the European Union that EU law did not require Romania to grant residence to FV, a British woman who entered a civil union with her Romanian partner in Italy. FV is challenging an order to leave Romania so the two women can continue living together.The women lived continents apart when they formalized their relationship in June 2024, with FV in Australia and her partner, GH, in Romania. FV joined GH the following January in Romania, where GH cared for her severely disabled mother.Neither had lived in Italy. Medina wrote: “Although entering into a civil union is a legal act of undoubted personal significance, it is not equivalent to having lived as a family in the host member state.”Her nonbinding opinion explained why EU law protected family life developed during genuine residence abroad: Citizens might otherwise hesitate to move if they could not bring their families home afterward. Extending those protections to a brief visit, she warned, would intrude on national authority over family law and decisions reserved for EU lawmakers.Medina also found no evidence that GH depended on FV so completely that denying FV residence would force GH to leave Romania or the EU, though the national court would have to verify that assessment. Without the necessary connection to EU law, the bloc’s fundamental rights charter did not apply. European human rights protections remained relevant.FV had applied to extend her stay in February 2025. Immigration officials ordered her to return to Britain in April because the couple have no children together and FV had not demonstrated residence rights elsewhere in the EU as a Romanian citizen’s family member.Lenka Křičková, an assistant professor of law at Masaryk University, said the judges had an opportunity to clarify how much more than a border crossing EU residence protections required. “In particular, the question is whether it is enough for the EU citizen to travel to another member state for the sole purpose of entering into a civil union there,” she said.Křičková said endorsing Medina’s approach could also reassure those concerned that citizens could sidestep their own country’s family laws simply by formalizing a relationship abroad.Alina Tryfonidou, an assistant professor in EU law and family law at the University of Cyprus, saw room for progress on LGBTI rights despite the proposed outcome.“The advocate general makes clear that failure to qualify as a family member under EU residence rules does not end the inquiry,” she said. If EU law applied, she explained, authorities would still have to assess the couple’s relationship individually, even if domestic law did not recognize their union.Tryfonidou also highlighted the unequal choices Romania’s rules left couples: Opposite-sex partners could marry to qualify for family reunification, while same-sex partners could not. She said that disadvantage was tied specifically to sexual orientation. Although it did not change Medina’s proposed outcome, she said the equality argument could prove important in a future case covered by EU law.Medina also explained how FV’s application would have to be handled if the court rejected her conclusion that EU law did not apply. Romania would have to consider the couple’s relationship individually, rather than dismiss it because their union was not recognized. The requirements officials had relied on, a shared child or prior registration as a family member elsewhere in the EU, went beyond the relevant EU rules, she said. That would give FV a right to an individual assessment and reasons for any refusal, but would not guarantee permission to stay.FV’s lawyers were not been publicly identified at the opinion stage. Romania’s General Inspectorate for Immigration did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The final word on FV’s right to stay is still to come. Medina’s opinion is nonbinding, and the EU court must now give its ruling before the Court of Appeal in Oradea decides her challenge, with no ordinary appeal available.Courthouse News reporter Eunseo Hong is based in the Netherlands.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads