Coman and Others v General Inspectorate for Immigration and Ministry of the Interior
Coman and Others v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări and Ministerul Afacerilor Interne is a 2018 case of the European Court of Justice that affirmed residency rights in EU countries, to the spouse of an EU citizen who is exercising their right to freedom of movement and if the marriage was legally performed in an EU member state.
, Romania has yet to implement the verdict by granting Coman's partner a residence permit. On 14 September 2021 the European Parliament passed a resolution calling on the European Commission to ensure that the ruling is respected across the EU. The case was expanded upon in the 2025 case Cupriak-Trojan and Trojan v Wojewoda Mazowiecki.
EU law
Article 21 TFEU defines that "every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States."Directive 2004/38/EC defines this right. It grants the same freedom to family members of Union citizens, even if they are not nationals of an EU member state. "Family members" include the spouse, the registered partner, a child under 21, or a dependent child or parent. There is a second category of "any other family member", which can be included at the discretion of national legislation.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union affirms the freedom of movement and of residence and furthermore guarantees the right to respect for private and family life, guarantees the right to marry and prohibits discrimination based on, among other grounds, sex and sexual orientation.
Case background
In 2010, Adrian Coman, a Romanian national and thus EU citizen, married Claibourn Robert Hamilton, a citizen of the United States, in Belgium, an EU member state where same-sex marriage is legal. The Civil Code of Coman's home country Romania prohibits same-sex marriage and does not recognise same-sex marriages performed abroad. On these grounds, the Romanian immigration authorities denied a residence permit for his spouse when the couple wanted to move back after living in the United States. They challenged the decision before the Court of First Instance in Bucharest, which referred the case to the Constitutional Court of Romania, which in turn asked for a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice.The European Commission and the Netherlands intervened on behalf of the applicants, while Latvia, Poland, and Hungary filed briefs supporting Romania's position. Advocate-General Melchior Wathelet issued a legal opinion supporting the applicants.