1.

The present request for a preliminary ruling concerns Article 2(2)(a), Article 3(1) and (2)(a) and (b) and Article 7(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC. ( 2 )

2.

It provides the Court with the opportunity to rule, for the first time, on the concept of ‘spouse’ within the meaning of Directive 2004/38 in the context of a marriage between two men. To do so is a delicate matter for, although it relates to marriage as a legal institution, in the specific limited context of freedom of movement of citizens of the European Union, the definition of the concept of ‘spouse’ to be given will necessarily affect not only the very identity of the men and women concerned, and therefore their dignity, but also the personal and social concept that citizens of the Union have of marriage, which may vary from one person to another and from one Member State to another.

3.

Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), entitled ‘Respect for private and family life’, provides:

‘Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.’

4.

In the words of Article 9 of the Charter, ‘the right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights’.

5.

Article 21(1) of the Charter prohibits ‘any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation’.

6.

According to Article 21 TFEU, ‘every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaties and by the measures adopted to give them effect’.

7.

Recitals 2, 5, 6 and 31 of Directive 2004/38 state:

…

…

8.

Article 2 of Directive 2004/38, entitled ‘Definitions’, provides:

‘For the purposes of this Directive:

…

…’

9.

Article 3 of Directive 2004/38, entitled ‘Beneficiaries’, is worded as follows:

‘1.   This Directive shall apply to all Union citizens who move to or reside in a Member State other than that of which they are a national, and to their family members as defined in point 2 of Article 2 who accompany or join them.

2.   Without prejudice to any right to free movement and residence the persons concerned may have in their own right, the host Member State shall, in accordance with its national legislation, facilitate entry and residence for the following persons:

The host Member State shall undertake an extensive examination of the personal circumstances and shall justify any denial of entry or residence to these people.’

10.

Article 7(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/38, entitled ‘Right of residence for more than three months’, states:

‘1.   All Union citizens shall have the right of residence on the territory of another Member State for a period of longer than three months if they:

2.   The right of residence provided for in paragraph 1 shall extend to family members who are not nationals of a Member State, accompanying or joining the Union citizen in the host Member State, provided that such Union citizen satisfies the conditions referred to in paragraph 1(a), (b) or (c).’

11.

According to Article 259(1) and (2) of the Civil Code:

‘1.   Marriage is the union freely consented to of a man and a woman, entered into in the conditions provided for by law.

2.   Men and women shall have the right to marry with a view to founding a family.’

12.

In the words of Article 277(1), (2) and (4) of the Civil Code:

‘1.   Marriage between persons of the same sex shall be prohibited.

2.   Marriages between persons of the same sex entered into or contracted abroad by Romanian citizens or by foreigners shall not be recognised in Romania. …

4.   The legal provisions relating to freedom of movement on Romanian territory by citizens of the Member States of the European Union and the European Economic Area shall be applicable.’

13.

Mr Relu Adrian Coman is a Romanian citizen who possesses United States nationality too. He met Mr Robert Clabourn Hamilton, a United States citizen, in New York (United States) in June 2002. They lived together in New York from May 2005 until May 2009, when Mr Coman took up residence in Brussels in order to work at the European Parliament as a parliamentary assistant, while Mr Hamilton remained in New York. They were married in Brussels on 5 November 2010.

14.

In March 2012, Mr Coman ceased to work at the European Parliament and remained in Brussels. In December 2012, Mr Coman and his spouse embarked on the administrative steps with the Romanian administration in order to obtain the documents necessary for Mr Coman, with his non-EU-national spouse, to be able to work and reside lawfully in Romania for a period of more than three months.

15.

By letter of 11 January 2013, the Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări (General Inspectorate for Immigration, Romania) refused their request, maintaining that the extension of the right of temporary residence of a United States national on the conditions laid down in the Romanian legislation on immigration in conjunction with the other relevant legal provisions in that sphere could not be granted for the purposes of family reunion.

16.

On 28 October 2013, Mr Coman and Mr Hamilton, together with Asociaţia Accept, brought an action against the decision of the Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări before the Judecătoria Sectorului 5 București (Court of First Instance, District 5, Bucharest, Romania).

17.

In the context of that dispute, they raised a plea of unconstitutionality against Article 277(2) and (4) of the Civil Code. In their submission, failure to recognise marriages between persons of the same sex entered into abroad, for the purposes of the exercise of the right of residence, constitutes infringement of the provisions of the Romanian Constitution that protect the right to personal life, family life and private life and of the provisions relating to the principle of equality too.

18.

On 18 December 2015, the Judecătoria Sectorului 5 București (the Court of First Instance, District 5, Bucharest) requested the Curtea Constituţională (Constitutional Court, Romania) to rule on that plea of unconstitutionality. The latter court considered that the present case related exclusively to recognition of the effects of a marriage lawfully entered into abroad between a citizen of the Union and his or her spouse of the same sex, a national of a third country, in the light of the right to family life and the right to freedom of movement, seen from the aspect of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. In that context, the Curtea Constituţională (Constitutional Court) had doubts as to the interpretation to be given to several terms employed in Directive 2004/38, read in the light of the Charter and of the recent case-law of this Court and of the European Court of Human Rights (‘the ECtHR’) on the right to family life. It therefore decided to stay proceedings and to request a preliminary ruling from the Court.

19.

By decision of 29 November 2016, received at the Court on 30 December 2016, the la Curtea Constituţională (Constitutional Court) therefore decided to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

20.

Written observations were submitted by the applicants in the main proceedings, the Romanian, Hungarian, Netherlands and Polish Governments and by the European Commission too.

21.

In addition, with the exception of the Netherlands Government, they all submitted oral argument at the hearing on 21 November 2017. The Latvian Government and the Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării, which had not submitted written observations, were also granted leave to submit their arguments at that hearing.

22.

Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38 defines as ‘beneficiaries’ of the rights conferred by the directive ‘all Union citizens who move to or reside in a Member State other than that of which they are a national, and … their family members as defined in point 2 of Article 2 who accompany or join them’. ( 4 )

23.

In the context of the main proceedings, Mr Hamilton cannot therefore rely on the directive. As the Court has already held in particularly clear terms, ‘it follows from a literal, systematic and teleological interpretation of Directive 2004/38 that that directive does not establish a derived right of residence for third-country nationals who are family members of a Union citizen in the Member State of which that citizen is a national’. ( 5 )

24.

However, the Court has recognised that a derived right of residence might in some circumstances be based on Article 21(1) TFEU and that, in that context, Directive 2004/38 must be applied by analogy. ( 6 )

25.

In fact, if the third-country national who is a member of the family of a Union citizen did not have a right to reside in the Member State of which the Union citizen is a national, that Union citizen could be discouraged from leaving that State in order to pursue an activity on the territory of another Member State owing to the prospect of not being able to continue, on returning to his Member State of origin, a way of family life which might have come into being in the host Member State. ( 7 ) In order for that derived right of residence to be applicable, however, the residence of the Union citizen in the host Member State must have been sufficiently genuine to enable that citizen to create or strengthen family life. ( 8 )

26.

It is therefore settled law that ‘where, during the genuine residence of the Union citizen in the host Member State, pursuant to and in conformity with the conditions set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/38, family life is created or strengthened in that Member State, the effectiveness of the rights conferred on the Union citizen by Article 21(1) TFEU requires that the citizen’s family life in the host Member State may continue on returning to the Member State of which he is a national, through the grant of a derived right of residence to the family member who is a third-country national. If no such derived right of residence were granted, that Union citizen could be discouraged from leaving the Member State of which he is a national in order to exercise his right of residence under Article 21(1) TFEU in another Member State because he is uncertain whether he will be able to continue in his Member State of origin a family life with his immediate family members which has been created or strengthened in the host Member State’. ( 9 )

27.

In the present case, it appears to be accepted that Mr Coman and Mr Hamilton did indeed consolidate a family life while Mr Coman, a Union citizen, was residing in Belgium. When they had lived together for four years in New York and, in so doing, founded a family life, ( 10 ) their relationship was indisputably consolidated by their marriage, in Brussels, on 5 November 2010.

28.

The fact that Mr Hamilton did not live continuously with Mr Coman in that city does not seem to me to be capable of rendering their relationship ineffective. In a globalised world, it is not unusual for a couple one of whom works abroad not to share the same accommodation for longer or shorter periods owing to the distance between the two countries, the accessibility of means of transport, the employment of the other spouse or the children’s education. The fact that the couple do not live together cannot in itself have any effect on the existence of a proven stable relationship — which is the case — and, consequently, on the existence of a family life. ( 11 )

29.

The questions submitted by the referring court therefore remain relevant since the interpretation of the provisions referred to in the request for a preliminary ruling may be helpful in determining the case before the Curtea Constituţională (Constitutional Court).

30.

By its first question, the referring court asks whether the term ‘spouse’ used in Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2004/38, read in the light of Articles 7, 9, 21 and 45 of the Charter, applies to a third-country national of the same sex as the Union citizen to whom he or she is lawfully married in accordance with the law of a Member State other than the host State.

31.

The parties having lodged observations propose two quite opposite answers. According to the applicants in the main proceedings, the Netherlands Government and the Commission, Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2004/38 must be given a uniform autonomous interpretation. According to that interpretation, the national of a third country of the same sex as the Union citizen to whom he or she is lawfully married in accordance with the law of a Member State is covered by the term ‘spouse’. In contrast, the Romanian, Latvian, Hungarian and Polish Governments contend that that term does not fall within the scope of EU law but must be defined in the light of the law of the host Member State.

32.

In my view the latter approach cannot be followed. On the contrary, I consider that the autonomous interpretation must be applied and that the meaning of the term ‘spouse’ used in Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2004/38 must be independent of the sex of the person who is married to a Union citizen.

33.

Although Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2004/38 on registered partnership refers to ‘the conditions laid down in the relevant legislation of the host Member State’, Article 2(2)(a) of that directive makes no renvoi to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining the status of ‘spouse’.

34.

According to the Court’s settled case-law, it is required by both the uniform application of EU law and the principle of equality that the terms of a provision of EU law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union. ( 12 ) That interpretation must have regard not only to the wording of the provision but also to its context and the objective pursued by the legislation in question. ( 13 )

35.

That methodology has been expressly used in the context of Directive 2004/38; I see no reason to depart from it to interpret the term ‘spouse’. ( 14 )

36.

Admittedly, it is settled law that legislation on civil status falls within the competence of the Member States and that EU law does not detract from that competence. ( 15 ) However, two remarks are called for in this regard.

37.

On the one hand, the Court has consistently held in various areas of law that, when exercising their competences, Member States must observe EU law. ( 16 ) Matters relating to the marital status of persons do not derogate from that rule, and the Court has expressly held that the provisions relating to the principle of non-discrimination must be observed in the exercise of those competences. ( 17 )

38.

On the other hand, the legal issue at the heart of the main proceedings is not that of legalisation of marriage between persons of the same sex but that of the freedom of movement of a Union citizen. While Member States are free to provide or not for marriage for persons of the same sex in their internal legal order, ( 18 ) the Court has held that a situation governed by rules falling a priori within the competence of the Member States may have ‘an intrinsic connection with the freedom of movement of a Union citizen which prevents nationals [of third countries] being refused the right of entry and residence in the Member State of residence of that citizen, in order not to interfere with that freedom’. ( 19 )

39.

The fact that marriage — in the sense exclusively of the union of a man and a woman — is enshrined in certain national constitutions ( 20 ) cannot alter that approach.

40.

In fact, if it were to be considered that the concept of marriage relates to national identity in certain Member States (which has not been expressly maintained by any of the Member States having lodged written observations, but only by the Latvian Government at the hearing on 21 November 2017), the obligation to respect that identity, which is set out in Article 4(2) TEU, cannot be construed independently of the obligation of sincere cooperation set out in Article 4(3) TEU. In accordance with that obligation, the Member States are required to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union.

41.

In the present case, the questions submitted by the referring court relate exclusively to the application of Directive 2004/38. The only thing required, therefore, is to define the implications of an obligation resulting from an act of the Union. Consequently, interpretation of the term ‘spouse’, restricted to the ambit of Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, will not adversely affect the current freedom of Member States as regards the legalisation of marriage between persons of the same sex. ( 21 )

42.

Furthermore, as I shall explain when I analyse the context and the objectives of Directive 2004/38, the fundamental rights linked with the term ‘spouse’ also preclude an interpretation liable to prevent a homosexual Union citizen being accompanied by the person to whom he or she is married or to make it more difficult for him or her to be accompanied by that person.

43.

It is therefore appropriate to seek the interpretation of the term ‘spouse’ in Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2004/38 having regard to the wording of the provision, its context and the objective pursued by Directive 2004/38.

44.

Directive 2004/38 does not define the term ‘spouse’, which it uses on several occasions, in particular in Article 2(2)(a).

45.

Nonetheless, the structure of Article 2(2) of Directive 2004/38, in conjunction with Article 3(2)(b) of that directive, confirms that the concept of ‘spouse’ refers to that of ‘marriage’.

46.

In fact, besides the direct descendants and direct ascendants referred to in Article 2(2)(c) and (d) of Directive 2004/38, the ‘family members’ within the meaning of Directive 2004/38 are the spouse and the partner with whom the Union citizen has contracted a registered partnership. Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2004/38 adds to the beneficiaries of the directive ‘the partner with whom the Union citizen has a durable relationship, duly attested’.

47.

If they are not to be rendered irrelevant, those three examples necessarily relate to different situations, from the most binding to the most flexible from a legal viewpoint. Since the simple relationship outside any legal link is envisaged in Article 3 of Directive 2004/38 and since the existence of a registered partnership is referred to in Article 2(2)(b) of the directive, the term ‘spouse’ necessarily comprehends the third and last situation that can be legally envisaged, that is to say, a relationship based on marriage. ( 22 )

48.

Moreover, the Court has already, implicitly but beyond all doubt, associated with marriage the term ‘spouse’ used in Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2004/38. In its judgment of 25 July 2008, Metock and Others (C‑127/08, EU:C:2008:449), the Court held that Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that ‘a national of a non-member country who is the spouse of a Union citizen residing in a Member State whose nationality he does not possess and who accompanies or joins that Union citizen benefits from the provisions of that directive, irrespective of when and where their marriage took place and of how the national of a non-member country entered the host Member State’. ( 23 )

49.

If it is therefore certain that the word ‘spouse’ used in Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2004/38 relates to marriage, it is gender-neutral and independent of the place where the marriage was contracted.

50.

That the place where the marriage was entered into is irrelevant is confirmed, a contrario, by the Union legislature’s decision to make express reference to the law of the host Member State in the case of a registered partnership. That difference may easily be explained by the fact that the legal institution of marriage has, or at the very least is presumed to have, a certain universality in the rights it confers and the obligations it places on the spouses, whereas the laws on ‘partnerships’ differ and vary in their personal and material scope, as do their legal consequences. ( 24 ) Furthermore, the Union legislature conferred the benefit of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2004/38 solely on registered partnerships ‘equivalent to marriage. ( 25 )

51.

The drafting history of Directive 2004/38 confirms that the word chosen was deliberately neutral. Although the expression ‘spouse’ had previously been used, without more, by the Commission in its initial proposal, ( 26 ) the Parliament wished the irrelevance of the sex of the person concerned to be mentioned, by adding the words ‘irrespective of sex, according to the relevant national legislation’. ( 27 ) However, the Council expressed its reluctance to opt for a definition of the term ‘spouse’ that would expressly include spouses of the same sex, since at the time only two Member States had adopted legislation authorising marriage between persons of the same sex and since the Court had also held that the definition of marriage generally accepted by the Member States at the time referred to a union between two persons of opposite sexes. ( 28 ) Relying on the Council’s concerns, the Commission preferred to ‘restrict [its] proposal to the concept of spouse as meaning in principle spouse of a different sex, unless there are subsequent developments’. ( 29 )

52.

It therefore seems to me that no argument in favour of one theory rather than the other can be derived from the drafting history of the directive. There can be no doubt that the Union legislature was perfectly aware of the controversy that could arise over the interpretation of the word ‘spouse’ not otherwise defined. However, it did not desire to clarify that concept, whether by limiting it to heterosexual marriage or, on the contrary, by referring to marriage between persons of the same sex — although the Commission expressly emphasised the possibility that the situation might develop. The Commission’s reservation in that regard is crucial. It makes it impossible for the term ‘spouse’ to be definitively fixed and sealed off from developments in society. ( 30 )

53.

It therefore follows from this first examination that the wording of Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2004/38 is neutral. That choice on the part of the legislature allows the term ‘spouse’ to be interpreted independently of the place in which the marriage was celebrated and of the question of the sex of the persons concerned. The context and the objective of Directive 2004/38 confirm that interpretation.

54.

When Directive 2004/38 was adopted, only two Member States of the Union: the Netherlands and Belgium, had laws making marriage available to persons of the same sex. As I have pointed out above, that played a part in the Council’s decision not to follow the European Parliament’s proposed amendment in favour of a more explicit formulation of Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2004/38.

55.

It seems to me, however, that the development envisaged at the time by the Commission in its amended proposal should be taken into account. In addition, the concept of ‘spouse’ is also closely linked to several fundamental rights; a contextual interpretation cannot be closed off from those rights.

56.

As several Advocates General have already had occasion to maintain, EU law must be interpreted ‘in the light of present day circumstances’, ( 31 ) that is to say, taking the ‘modern reality’ ( 32 ) of the Union into account. In fact, the law ‘cannot cut itself off from society as it actually is, and must not fail to adjust to it as quickly as possible. Otherwise it would run the risk of imposing outdated views and taking on a static role. ( 33 ) That without doubt is particularly so in matters affecting society. As Advocate General Geelhoed has explained, ‘if no account were taken of those developments, the relevant rules of law would risk losing their effectiveness’. ( 34 ) As the Court itself has pointed out, a provision of EU law must be interpreted in the light of the state of evolution on the date on which the provision in question is to be applied. ( 35 )

57.

That is why the solution adopted by the Court in the judgment of 31 May 2001, D and Sweden v Council (C‑122/99 P and C‑125/99 P, EU:C:2001:304), by which ‘according to the definition generally accepted by the Member States, the term marriage means a union between persons of the opposite sex’, ( 36 ) now seems to me outdated.

58.

In fact, while at the end of the year 2004 only two Member States allowed marriage between persons of the same sex, 11 more Member States have since amended their legislation to that effect and same-sex marriage will be possible in Austria too, by 1 January 2019 at the latest. ( 37 ) That legal recognition of same-sex marriage does no more than reflect a general development in society with regard to the question. Statistical investigations confirm it; ( 38 ) the authorisation of marriage between persons of the same sex in a referendum in Ireland also serves as an illustration. ( 39 ) While different perspectives on the matter still remain, including within the Union, ( 40 ) the development nonetheless forms part of a general movement. In fact, this kind of marriage is now recognised in all continents. ( 41 ) It is not something associated with a specific culture or history; on the contrary, it corresponds to a universal recognition of the diversity of families. ( 42 )

59.

The term ‘spouse’ used in Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2004/38 is necessarily associated with family life and, consequently, the protection conferred on the latter by Article 7 of the Charter. The scope of that article must therefore be taken into account in a contextual interpretation. ( 43 ) In that regard, the development of the case-law of the ECtHR must not be overlooked.

60.

According to Article 52(3) of the Charter, the meaning and scope of the rights which correspond to rights guaranteed by the ECHR are to be the same as those laid down in that Convention. According to the explanations on the Charter of Fundamental Rights — which must be ‘given due regard by the courts of the Union’ ( 44 ) —, the rights guaranteed in Article 7 of the Charter correspond to those guaranteed by Article 8 of the ECHR. The former therefore have the same meaning and the same scope as the latter. ( 45 )

61.

In fact, the development of the case-law of the ECtHR concerning Article 8 of the ECHR is significant.

62.

While the ECtHR consistently confirms the freedom of States to make marriage available to persons of the same sex, ( 46 ) it considered, at the beginning of the 2010s, that it was ‘artificial to continue to take the view that, unlike a heterosexual couple, a homosexual couple could not have a “family life” for the purposes of Article 8 [of the ECHR]’. ( 47 ) That interpretation has since been several times confirmed. ( 48 ) The ECtHR has also confirmed that Article 8 of the ECHR required States to afford homosexual couples legal recognition and the legal protection of their relationship. ( 49 )

63.

That development in the understanding of family life has indisputably had an impact on the right of residence of nationals of third countries. Although Article 8 of the ECHR does not entail a general obligation to accept the installation of non-national spouses or to authorise family reunion in the territory of a Contracting State, decisions taken by States in the immigration sphere can in some cases amount to an interference with the right to respect for private and family life secured by Article 8 of the ECHR. ( 50 ) That is the case, in particular, when the persons concerned possess sufficiently strong personal or family ties in the host country that are liable to be seriously affected by the application of the measure in question. ( 51 )

64.

According to the ECtHR, although ‘protection of the traditional family may, in some circumstances, amount to a legitimate aim …, [the ECtHR] considers that, regarding the matter in question here — granting a residence permit for family reasons to a homosexual foreign partner — it cannot amount to a “particularly convincing and weighty” reason capable of justifying, in the circumstances of the present case, discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation’. ( 52 )

65.

It even seems that the ECtHR is inclined to consider that a difference in treatment based solely — or decisively — on considerations regarding the applicant’s sexual orientation are quite simply unacceptable under the ECHR. ( 53 ) In a different context, Advocate General Jääskinen had expressed a similar point of view. It seemed to Advocate General Jääskinen ‘to go without saying that the aim of protecting marriage or the family cannot legitimise discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation [because] it is difficult to imagine what causal relationship could unite that type of discrimination, as grounds, and the protection of marriage, as a positive effect that could derive from it’. ( 54 )

66.

That development in the right to respect for family life therefore seems to me to lead to an interpretation of ‘spouse’ that is necessarily independent of the sex of the persons concerned when it is confined to the scope of Directive 2004/38.

67.

In fact, that interpretation provides the optimum respect for family life guaranteed in Article 7 of the Charter while leaving to Member States the freedom to authorise or not marriage between persons of the same sex. On the other hand, an interpretation to the contrary would amount to a difference in treatment of married couples depending on whether they are of the same sex or of different sexes, since no Member State prohibits heterosexual marriage. Based on sexual orientation, such a difference in treatment would be unacceptable under Directive 2004/38 and the Charter, as it must be interpreted in the light of the ECHR.

68.

The objective pursued by Directive 2004/38 also supports an interpretation of the term ‘spouse’ independent of sexual orientation.

69.

It has consistently been held that the purpose of Directive 2004/38 is to facilitate that primary and individual right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States which is conferred directly on citizens of the Union by Article 21(1) TFEU and to reinforce that right. ( 55 )

70.

That objective is set out in recital 1 of Directive 2004/38. Recital 2 adds that the free movement of persons constitutes one of the fundamental freedoms of the internal market, which is enshrined in Article 45 of the Charter.

71.

Recital 5 of Directive 2004/38 emphasises, moreover, that the right of all Union citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States should, if it is to be exercised under objective conditions of freedom and dignity, be granted to the members of their family too, irrespective of nationality. ( 56 ) As the Court has held on several occasions, the exercise of the freedoms guaranteed to Union citizens by the Treaty would be seriously obstructed if they were not allowed to lead a normal family life in the host Member State. ( 57 )

72.

Thus, as I observed when examining the applicability of Directive 2004/38 to the present case, Union citizens could be discouraged from leaving the Member State of which they are a national and from becoming established on the territory of another Member State owing to the prospect of not being able to continue, on returning to the Member State of origin, a way of family life which might have come into being, by the effect of marriage or family reunion, in the host Member State. ( 58 )

73.

Because of those objectives, the Court consistently considers that the provisions of Directive 2004/38 may not be interpreted restrictively and at all events must not be deprived of their effectiveness. ( 59 ) The Court has even recognised that that was a principle in accordance with which ‘the provisions, such as Directive 2004/38, establishing the free movement of Union citizens, which constitute one of the foundations of the European Union, must be construed broadly’. ( 60 )

74.

Consequently, where there is a choice between an interpretation of the term ‘spouse’ that limits the scope of Directive 2004/38 and another that, respecting the wording and the context of the provision being interpreted, facilitates the free movement of a greater number of citizens, the second interpretation must be chosen.

75.

There are even stronger reasons for opting for that interpretation of the term because it is consistent with another objective of Directive 2004/38, set out in recital 31, which states that Member States should implement Directive 2004/38 ‘without discrimination between the beneficiaries of [the] Directive on grounds such as … sexual orientation’. A definition of the term ‘spouse’ that was limited to heterosexual marriage would inevitably give rise to situations involving discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. ( 61 )

76.

Lastly, interpretation of the term ‘spouse’ irrespective of the question of the sex of the persons concerned is also apt to ensure a high level of legal certainty and transparency, for a Union citizen who is lawfully married knows that his or her spouse, whatever the latter’s sex, will be regarded as a spouse for the purposes of Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2004/38 in the other 27 Member States of the Union. ( 62 )

77.

The literal, contextual and teleological interpretations of the term ‘spouse’ used in Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2004/38 lead to giving it an autonomous definition independent of sexual orientation. ( 63 )

78.

First of all, it is a requirement of the uniform application of EU law and of the principle of equal treatment that the terms of a provision of EU law that has not been defined and that makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope should be given uniform autonomous interpretation throughout the European Union.

79.

Next, if the structure of Article 2(2) of Directive 2004/38, in conjunction with Article 3(2)(b) of that directive, requires the concept of ‘spouse’ to be associated with marriage, the legislature deliberately chose, moreover, to use a neutral term, without further detail.

80.

Last, both the development of European society — which is reflected in the number of Member States whose legislation permits marriage between persons of the same sex and in the current definition of family life in Article 7 of the Charter — and the objectives of Directive 2004/38 — facilitating the free movement of Union citizens while respecting their sexual orientation — lead to the concept of ‘spouse’ being interpreted independently of sexual orientation. ( 64 )

81.

By its second question, the referring court asks whether Article 3(1) and Article 7(2) of Directive 2004/38, read in the light of Articles 7, 9, 21 and 45 of the Charter, require the host Member State to grant the right to reside on its territory for a period of more than three months to the same-sex spouse of a citizen of the European Union.

82.

Article 7(2) of Directive 2004/38 is clear: the right of a Union citizen to reside for more than three months on the territory of another Member State extends to his or her spouse who is a national of a third country and who accompanies or joins the Union citizen in the host Member State, provided that such Union citizen satisfies the conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(a), (b) or (c) of Directive 2004/38.

83.

It is therefore an automatic right. Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38 confirms this.

84.

As the Court has held, ‘it follows both from the wording of Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38 and from the general system of the directive that the [EU] legislature has drawn a distinction between a Union citizen’s family members as defined in Article 2(2) of Directive 2004/38, who enjoy, as provided for in the directive, a right of entry into and residence in that citizen’s host Member State, and the other family members envisaged in Article 3(2) of the directive, whose entry and residence has only to be facilitated by that Member State’. ( 65 )

85.

However, we have seen that, in the context of the main proceedings, Mr Hamilton could not rely upon the directive because the provisions of Directive 2004/38 do not confer a derived right of residence on third-country nationals, members of the family of a Union citizen, in the Member State of which that citizen is a national. ( 66 )

86.

Nonetheless, Mr Hamilton should, in principle, be entitled to a derived right of residence on the basis of Article 21(1) TFEU and Directive 2004/38 should be applied to him by analogy. ( 67 )

87.

In those circumstances, in accordance with the Court’s case-law, the conditions for granting a derived right of residence applicable in his spouse’s Member State of origin should not, in principle, be stricter than those provided for by that directive if he was in a situation in which his spouse had exercised his right of freedom of movement by taking up residence in a Member State other than the Member State of which he was a national. ( 68 )

88.

Specifically, when Directive 2004/38 is applied by analogy, the conditions for granting a right of residence for a period of more than three months to the national of a third country, who is the same-sex spouse of a Union citizen, should not in principle be stricter than those laid down in Article 7(2) of that directive.

89.

The third and fourth questions submitted by the referring court are asked only if the term ‘spouse’ within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2004/38 were to be interpreted as referring only to heterosexual couples joined in marriage.

90.

That conclusion being, in my view, contrary to the wording and the context of the provision in question and also to the objectives pursued by Directive 2004/38, it should not be necessary to answer those questions. In the interest of completeness, however, I shall briefly examine them; furthermore, they may be examined together.

91.

By its third and fourth questions, the referring court seeks, in essence, to ascertain whether a third-country national, of the same sex as the citizen of the European Union to whom he or she is married in accordance with the law of a Member State other than the host Member State, may, if he or she is not regarded as a ‘spouse’ within the meaning of Directive 2004/38, be classified as ‘[another] family member’ or a ‘partner with whom the Union citizen has a durable relationship, duly attested’ within the meaning of Article 3(2)(a) or (b) of that directive, and what the consequences of being so classified are.

92.

As I have already explained, it is artificial nowadays to consider that a homosexual couple cannot have a family life within the meaning of Article 7 of the Charter. ( 69 )

93.

Consequently, there can be no doubt that a third-country national, of the same sex as the citizen of the European Union to whom he or she is married in accordance with the law of a Member State, can fall within the scope of Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38, as ‘[another] family member’ or as the partner with whom the Union citizen has a durable relationship, duly attested.

94.

However, it follows from the judgment of 5 September 2012, Rahman and Others (C‑83/11, EU:C:2012:519), that Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38 does not oblige the Member States to accord a right of entry and residence to persons who fall within the scope of that provision. It merely places on them an obligation to confer a certain advantage, by comparison with applications for entry and residence of other nationals of third States, on applications submitted by persons falling within its scope. ( 70 )

95.

The Court has made it clear that, in order to fulfil that obligation, the Member States must, ‘in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38, make it possible for persons envisaged in the first subparagraph of Article 3(2) to obtain a decision on their application that is founded on an extensive examination of their personal circumstances and, in the event of refusal, is justified by reasons’. ( 71 )

96.

The Court has also found it necessary to point out that the Member States had ‘wide discretion as regards the selection of the factors to be taken into account [since the] host Member State must ensure that its legislation contains criteria which are consistent with the normal meaning of the term “facilitate” … and which do not deprive that provision of its effectiveness’. ( 72 )

97.

To my mind, however, that discretion must be narrower in the situation described by the referring court.

98.

On the one hand, refusal to grant the application for entry and residence of a third-country national, of the same sex as the citizen of the European Union to whom he or she is married in accordance with the law of a Member State, may not be solely or decisively based on his or her sexual orientation, without infringing Articles 7 and 21 of the Charter. ( 73 ) In that regard, ‘although protection of the traditional family may, in some circumstances, amount to a legitimate aim under Article 14 [of the ECHR, which prohibits discrimination], the [European] Court [of Human Rights] considers that, regarding the matter in question here — granting a residence permit for family reasons to a homosexual foreign partner — it cannot amount to a “particularly convincing and weighty” reason capable of justifying, in the circumstances of the present case, discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation’. ( 74 )

99.

On the other hand, the obligation to facilitate the entry and residence of the national of a third State of the same sex as the citizen of the European Union to whom he or she is married is greater, and the discretion narrower, when the Member State does not allow marriage between persons of the same sex and does not afford homosexual couples the possibility of entering into a registered partnership. It follows from Article 8 of the ECHR, and therefore from Article 7 of the Charter, that there is a positive obligation to offer those persons, like heterosexuals, the opportunity of having their union recognised in law and protected by the courts. ( 75 ) Granting the spouse of a Union citizen a right of residence constitutes recognition and the minimum guarantee that can be given them.

100.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should answer the questions for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Curtea Constituţională (Constitutional Court, Romania) as follows: