The Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union (COMECE) has reacted to the recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the recognition of same-sex marriages celebrated in other Member States. In a statement published on December 9, the bishops point out that this ruling exceeds the Union’s competences, compromises legal certainty, pressures countries to modify their internal family legislation, and opens the door to other «negative» legal developments, including the normalization of surrogacy.
A judgment that takes the case law “beyond the limits”
The case Wojewoda Mazowiecki (C-713/23) reached the CJEU after two Polish citizens, married in Germany, asked Poland to transcribe their marriage. Polish authorities rejected it because it is contrary to their national legislation, which defines marriage exclusively as the union between a man and a woman.
The ruling of November 25 obliges Poland to transcribe that marriage because, according to the Court, the refusal violates freedom of movement and residence. Although the Court states that States are not obliged to introduce same-sex marriage into their legal order, it does require that they recognize its legal effects when they have been celebrated in another Union country.
COMECE considers that this requirement imposes a convergence of matrimonial law despite the fact that the EU has no mandate to harmonize family law. The bishops emphasize that Article 9 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights guarantees that marriage and family are governed “according to national laws,” many of which—including constitutions of Member States—explicitly define it as the union between a man and a woman.
The bishops: the Court is emptying the States’ law of content
The official statement, approved by the COMECE presidency on December 3, states that the ruling “seems to take the case law beyond the Union’s competences” and warns that, under the Court’s interpretation, the meaning of Article 9 is impoverished, because national identities—protected by Article 4.2 of the Treaty on European Union—are relegated to a “disappointingly limited” role.
The bishops insist that marriage, from the anthropological perspective based on natural law, “is the union between a man and a woman.” Although they respect the Court’s role, they affirm that they feel obliged to react to a judgment that affects essential matters reserved to the States.
COMECE recalls that the tendency to reinterpret key provisions has already been seen in other cases, such as with Article 17 of the TFEU on the protection of the legal status of Churches. This dynamic, they warn, threatens Europe’s legal diversity and places States in uncertainty about which parts of their family law will remain truly under their competence.
The risk of a domino effect: from the definition of marriage to surrogacy
The document warns that this ruling could open the door to “future similar legal approaches” on surrogacy, an area that is even more sensitive and ethically problematic for the Church.
The judgment, they say, fosters political and social pressures that could trigger a de facto reform of national legal systems without genuine democratic debate.
Concern over an increase in Euroscepticism
Finally, COMECE points out that these decisions can intensify anti-European sentiments in countries where there is already growing unease toward the actions of community institutions. Legal imposition on issues of strong moral and cultural sensitivity—such as the family—can be politically instrumentalized and further deteriorate the perception of the EU among citizens.