Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2025:956
Date: 2025-12-11
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Court formation: Second Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Lithuania

Translation C-789/23 –1 
Case C-789/23 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
21 December 2023 
Referring court: 
Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
20 December 2023 
Applicant at first instance and appellant: 
I. J. 
Defendant at first instance and respondent: 
Registrų centras VĮ 
  
[…] 
LIETUVOS VYRIAUSIASIS ADMINISTRACINIS TEISMAS 
(SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF LITHUANIA) 
ORDER 
20 December 2023 
[…] 
The Chamber, in extended composition, of the Supreme Administrative Court of 
Lithuania […] [composition of the court] 
has examined at a sitting of the court under the written appeal procedure, the 
administrative case concerning the appeal lodged by the appellant, I. J., against the 
judgment of the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Regional 
Administrative Court, Vilnius, Lithuania) of 29 June 2022 in the administrative 
case relating to the action brought by the appellant, I. J., against the respondent, 
the State enterprise Registrų centras (Registers Centre, Lithuania), seeking the 
annulment of a decision and an order requiring the performance of acts. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 20. 12. 2023 – CASE C-789/23 
 
2  
The Chamber, in extended composition, 
has established as follows: 
I. 
1 The present case concerns a dispute between the appellant, I. J., (‘the appellant’) 
and the respondent, the State enterprise Registrų centras (Registers Centre) (‘the 
respondent’) which relates to the decision […] on the fact of division of property 
(‘the Decision’) adopted by the respondent on 9 March 2002 refusing to grant the 
appellant’s application of 15 February 2022 for the recordal in the Vedybų 
sutarčių registras (Register of Marriage Contracts) (‘the Register’) of a legal fact 
(the fact of division of property) concerning the legal regime of the property of 
I. J. and C. B. 
Legal context. European Union law 
2 According to Article 21(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union (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’. 
Legal context. National law 
3 The Vedybų sutarčių registro nuostatai (Regulations of the Register of Marriage 
Contracts) (‘the Regulations’) were approved by Lietuvos Respublikos 
Vyriausybės 2002 m. rugpjūčio 13 d. nutarimas Nr. 1284 „Dėl Vedybų sutarčių 
registro nuostatų patvirtinimo“ (Resolution No 1284 of the Government of the 
Republic of Lithuania of 13 August 2002 approving the Regulations of the 
Register of Marriage Contracts). The version applicable to the present case is that 
of 10 September 2015, as last amended on 8 July 2020 by Resolution No 773 of 
the Government of the Republic of Lithuania. 
4 The Regulations are to determine the purpose and subject matter of the Register of 
Marriage Contracts, the manager and the administrator of the Register and their 
respective rights, obligations and functions, and are to govern the administration 
of the data and information in the Register (‘the data in the Register’), and of the 
documents and/or the copies thereof submitted for recordal in the Register, the 
interaction of the Register with the other registers, the security of the data in the 
Register, the disclosure and use of the documents and the data in the Register, and 
the financing, reorganisation and winding up of the Register (point 1 of the 
Regulations). The purpose of the Register is to record the subject matter of the 
Register referred to in point 13 of the Regulations, to collect, compile, process, 
systematise, store and disclose the data in the Register and the copies of the 
documents submitted for recordal in the Register, and to perform other processing 
actions in respect of the data in the Register (point 2 of the Regulations). 
REGISTRŲ CENTRAS 
 
3 
5 The State enterprise Registrų centras (Registers Centre) is to be the administrator 
of the Register (point 8 of the Regulations). 
6 The subject matter of the Register is to be marriage contracts (point 13.1 of the 
Regulations), cohabitation contracts for the division of jointly acquired and used 
property following the termination of the cohabitation (point 13.2 of the 
Regulations), and the facts of division of property as set out in the Civil Code 
(point 13.3 of the Regulations). 
7 Data providers are to be notaries who have certified marriage contracts, 
cohabitation contracts or contracts for the division of property, as well as the 
amendments to or termination of such contracts (point 21.1 of the Regulations); 
courts that have ruled on the division of community property, on the restoration of 
the rights of the creditors of one or both spouses where the rights of those 
creditors have been infringed by the amendment to or termination of the marriage 
contract or cohabitation contract, or on the amendment to or termination of the 
marriage contract, cohabitation contract, or contract for the division of property 
(point 21.2 of the Regulations); persons who have entered into a marriage contract 
or cohabitation contract – only in the cases set out in point 68 of the Regulations 
(point 21.3 of the Regulations). 
8 The notary who has certified the contract for the division of property or the court 
that has delivered the decision regarding the division of property is, within 3 
working days after the contract has been certified or the decision has become final 
(or, in the case of an appeal to the court of appeal, after the case has been referred 
back to the court of first instance), to submit to the administrator of the Register a 
notice of the fact of division of the property, together with a digital copy of the 
certified contract or of the court decision that has become final. In the notice of 
the fact of division of the property, the data provider is to submit the data referred 
to in points 17.2 to 17.9 of the Regulations (point 45 of the Regulations). 
9 A marriage contract or cohabitation contract concluded in a foreign State may be 
recorded in the Register if the marriage contract or cohabitation contract contains 
the personal identification number of at least one of the parties to the contract, as 
provided by the Lietuvos Respublikos gyventojų registras (Population Register of 
the Republic of Lithuania) (point 67 of the Regulations). 
10 Where one of the spouses or cohabitants wishes to record a marriage contract or 
cohabitation contract certified in a foreign State, to record amendments to such a 
contract, or to record data concerning the termination of such a contract, he or she 
may submit the data for recordal in the Register personally or through an 
authorised person, by post or electronically, in accordance with the procedure laid 
down by the administrator of the Register (point 68 of the Regulations). 
Relevant facts 
11 In the present administrative [case] it has been established that the appellant (data 
redacted) in the town of (data redacted) (in Italy) and C. B., an Italian national, 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 20. 12. 2023 – CASE C-789/23 
 
4  
entered into a marriage. The marriage was recorded in the Register of Marriage 
Certificates of the Municipality of (data redacted) in 2006. The extract from the 
marriage certificate contains a note indicating that the regime of separation of 
property chosen by the spouses is declared in the marriage certificate. 
12 On 15 February 2022, the appellant applied to the respondent for the recordal in 
the Register of Marriage Contracts of a legal fact (the fact of division of property) 
concerning the legal regime of the property of the appellant and C. B. 
13 After examining the appellant’s application, the respondent adopted the decision 
of 9 March 2022 (‘the Decision’) which is contested in the present administrative 
case. Pursuant to points 13, 21, 45, 67 to 68 of the Regulations, by the Decision, 
the respondent refused to record in the Register a legal fact (the fact of division of 
property) concerning the legal regime of the property of the appellant and her 
spouse. In addition, the respondent explained that the extract from the marriage 
certificate (data redacted) submitted by the appellant could be recorded in the 
Register as a marriage contract if the appellant submitted an addendum (annex) to 
the marriage certificate, certified by a notary or by any other competent official in 
Italy, containing the personal identification number of at least one of the parties to 
the marriage contract, as provided by the Population Register of the Republic of 
Lithuania. Furthermore, the respondent stated that natural persons are not data 
providers for the purpose of recording facts of division of property in the Register 
and, therefore, the fact of division of property cannot be recorded on the basis of 
the appellant’s application. 
14 The appellant has submitted a copy of an e-mail to the case file, from which it is 
apparent that she applied to the Register Office of (data redacted) for the issuance 
of a copy of the marriage certificate including the appellant’s personal 
identification number as it appears on her identity card. However, the Register 
Office of (data redacted) refused to issue such a copy, stating that it could not 
enter the Lithuanian personal identification number in the marriage certificate, 
since such data is not certified. The appellant has also submitted the certificate of 
16 February 2021 issued by L. B., notary of (data redacted) (Province of Savona, 
Italy), in which the notary indicated that, pursuant to Article 162(2) of the Italian 
Civil Code, the choice of the regime of separation of the spouses’ property may 
also be declared in the marriage recordal deed. 
15 Objecting to the respondent’s Decision, the appellant brought an action before the 
Regional Administrative Court, Vilnius, which dismissed the action brought by 
the appellant as unfounded by decision of 29 June 2022. In its decision, the 
Regional Administrative Court, Vilnius, stated, inter alia, that point 67 of the 
Regulations clearly sets out the requirements for the recordal of a marriage 
contract or cohabitation contract concluded in a foreign State. In the view of the 
Regional Administrative Court, Vilnius, having established that the marriage 
contract or the cohabitation contract does not include the personal identification 
number of at least one of the parties to the contract, as provided by the Population 
REGISTRŲ CENTRAS 
 
5 
Register of the Republic of Lithuania, the respondent not only had the right, but 
was also under an obligation, to refuse to grant the appellant’s application. 
16 The appellant brought an appeal against the judgment of the Regional 
Administrative Court, Vilnius, before the Supreme Administrative Court of 
Lithuania. 
The Chamber, in extended composition, 
finds as follows: 
II. 
17 The appellant applied to the respondent for the recordal in the Register of 
Marriage Contracts of a legal fact (the fact of division of property) concerning the 
legal regime of the property of I. J. and C. B. 
18 According to the version of the Regulations applicable to the present case, the 
following may be recorded in the Register of Marriage Contracts: (1) marriage 
contracts, (2) cohabitation contracts for the division of jointly acquired and used 
property following the termination of cohabitation, (3) the facts of division of 
property as set out in the Civil Code. A marriage contract is understood in that 
context as an agreement between the spouses defining their property rights and 
obligations during the marriage, as well as after divorce or separation. The fact of 
division of property is understood in that context as the agreement between the 
parties or the court decision dividing the community property […]. 
19 Chapter IV of the Regulations governs the recordal of the subject matter of the 
Register. The content of points 21 and 68 of that Chapter implies a legal rule 
according to which natural persons have the right to apply to the administrator of 
the Register of Marriage Contracts, as data providers, for the sole purpose of 
recording a marriage contract or cohabitation contract certified in a foreign State, 
of recording amendments to such a contract, or of recording the termination of 
such contract. In other words, the rule established does not confer on the appellant 
the right to apply to the respondent for the recordal of the fact of division of 
property, which is the subject matter of the Register referred to in point 13.3 of the 
Regulations. The content of point 21 of the Regulations reveals that data providers 
for the purpose of recording the fact of division of property in the Register are 
confined to notaries who have certified contracts for the division of property, and 
amendments to or termination of such contracts (point 21.1 of the Regulations), 
and courts that have delivered the decisions listed in point 21.2 of the Regulations. 
20 From the arguments set out in the appellant’s appeal, which define the subject 
matter of the present case (for example, that the spouses, when they entered into 
the marriage, de jure and de facto made a declaration corresponding to the concept 
of a marriage contract, which was recorded at the Register Office of (data 
redacted) (in Italy), or that the entry in the marriage recordal deed constitutes in 
fact a marriage contract, since the parties have agreed in that document on the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 20. 12. 2023 – CASE C-789/23 
 
6  
legal regime governing their matrimonial property), the present Chamber 
concludes that the appellant did indeed seek the recordal in the Register of 
Marriage Contracts of the marriage contract, which, in turn, determines the scope 
of the spouses’ property rights and obligations. Given that the appellant’s 
marriage was concluded in the foreign State and that the marriage recordal 
certificate contains information on the legal regime of separation of property 
chosen by the spouses, the appellant’s legal situation is comparable to the one 
provided for in point 68 of the Regulations, that is to say, where one of the 
spouses wishes to record a marriage contract certified in a foreign country. 
21 For the recordal of marriage contracts or cohabitation contracts concluded in a 
foreign State in the Register, point 67 of the Regulations establishes a clear 
imperative: the marriage contract or cohabitation contract must contain the 
personal identification number of at least one of the parties to the contract, as 
provided by the Population Register of Residents. In that respect, it is important to 
underline that the administrator of the Register, as a public administration entity, 
is to act only within the scope of the powers conferred on it by law and is not 
entitled by law to collect data and evidence confirming the presence or absence of 
certain facts on its own. Thus, although the universally important principle of 
good administration binds the administrator of the Register as a public 
administration entity, it does not have the right to take an independent decision on 
the existence of any factual circumstances or to assess them, since its obligation is 
confined to verifying whether the documents submitted to it comply with the 
requirements of the legislation. Consequently, in the circumstances of the present 
case, the respondent is under an obligation to refuse to record the extract from the 
marriage certificate submitted by the appellant as a marriage contract, since the 
document submitted does not comply with the requirement laid down in point 67 
of the Regulations, that is to say, it does not contain the personal identification 
number of at least one of the parties to the marriage contract, as provided by the 
Population Register of the Republic of Lithuania. 
22 On the other hand, the appellant entered into a marriage in another Member State 
of the European Union, the Italian Republic. Under the legislation in force in that 
country, the marriage certificate may also include the legal regime chosen for the 
matrimonial property. The extract from the marriage certificate of the appellant 
and her spouse reveals that such a document does not contain personal 
identification numbers to identify the persons concerned. Moreover, the 
competent authority of the Italian Republic refused to enter such identifying 
information in the extract from the marriage certificate, even after the appellant 
had specifically applied for it. 
23 It should also be noted that the data on the appellant’s marriage, recorded in the 
Italian Republic, was recorded in the Republic of Lithuania with the Register 
Office, and the fact that the appellant’s personal identification number has not 
been included in the extract from the marriage certificate was not considered to be 
an obstacle in that respect. In that context, the present Chamber observes that the 
legislation on the issue of the recordal of marriages recorded in a foreign State, 
REGISTRŲ CENTRAS 
 
7 
which is ratione temporis applicable to the present administrative case, did not in 
fact lay down any mandatory requirement that the document submitted for 
recordal, issued by an authority of a foreign State and certifying the recordal of 
the marriage, should contain the personal identification number of at least one of 
the spouses who entered into the marriage in question, as provided by the 
Population Register of the Republic of Lithuania. However, as already mentioned, 
such a requirement applies for the purpose of recording a marriage contract 
concluded in a foreign State in the Register of Marriage Contracts. 
24 In those circumstances, in the view of the present Chamber, the situation in the 
present administrative case may, in principle, be assessed under Article 21 TFEU. 
Article 21(1) TFEU, which has direct effect, guarantees every citizen of the Union 
the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States 
(judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 September 2002, [Baumbast and R], 
C-413/99, EU:C:2002:493, paragraph 94). Having regard to the fact that, in 
accordance with the Court’s settled case-law, Article 21 TFEU contains not only 
the right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States but also a 
prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of nationality (judgment of the Court 
of Justice of 8 June 2017, Freitag, C-541/15, EU:C:2017:432, paragraph 31 and 
the case-law cited), the present Chamber assumes that there is no need to assess 
the question at issue separately under Article 18 TFEU, which provides that, 
within the scope of application of the Treaties, and without prejudice to any 
special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality 
is to be prohibited. 
25 First of all, it should be noted that the appellant’s legal position is determined by 
the consequences of her status as a Union citizen who has exercised her right to 
freedom of movement: the appellant seeks to record in the Republic of Lithuania 
the marriage contract that she concluded when recording her marriage in another 
Member State of the European Union. Thus, the dispute under consideration does 
not concern a purely domestic situation that would not fall within the scope of EU 
law. The situations falling within the scope ratione materiae of EU law include 
those which involve the exercise of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the 
Treaty, in particular those involving the freedom to move and reside within the 
territory of the Member States, as conferred by Article 21 TFEU (judgment of the 
Court of Justice of 12 May 2011, Runevič-Vardyn and Wardyn, C-391/09, 
EU:C:2011:291, paragraph 62 and the case-law cited). 
26 According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, a citizen of the Union must be 
granted in all Member States the same treatment in law as that accorded to the 
nationals of those Member States who find themselves in the same situation, and it 
would therefore be incompatible with the right of freedom of movement if a 
citizen, in the Member State of which he or she is a national, were to receive 
treatment that is less favourable than that which he or she would enjoy if he or she 
had not availed himself or herself of the opportunities offered by the Treaty in 
relation to free movement (aforementioned judgment of the Court of Justice, 
Runevič-Vardyn and Wardyn, C-391/09, EU:C:2011:291, paragraph 67). The 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 20. 12. 2023 – CASE C-789/23 
 
8  
Court of Justice has also made it clear that a national law which places certain 
nationals at a disadvantage simply because they have exercised their freedom to 
move and to reside in another Member State constitutes a restriction on the 
freedoms conferred by Article 21(1) TFEU on every citizen of the European 
Union. Indeed, the opportunities offered by the Treaty in relation to freedom of 
movement for citizens of the Union cannot be fully effective if a national of a 
Member State could be dissuaded from using them by obstacles resulting from his 
or her stay in another Member State because of legislation of his or her State of 
origin penalising the mere fact that he or she has used those opportunities 
(judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 May 2016, [Kohll and Kohll-Schlesser], 
C-300/15, EU:C:2016:361, paragraphs 42 to 43 and the case-law cited). Thus, as 
is apparent from the Court’s case-law, a national of a Member State who has 
exercised, in his or her capacity as a citizen of the Union, his or her freedom to 
move and reside within a Member State other than his or her Member State of 
origin may rely on the rights pertaining to Union citizenship, in particular the 
rights provided for in Article 21(1) TFEU, including, where appropriate, against 
his or her Member State of origin ([order] of the Court of Justice of 24 June 2022, 
Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich, C-2/21, EU:C:2022:502, paragraph 36). 
27 In the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice referred to above, the present 
Chamber has doubts as to whether the rules laid down in the Regulations can be 
regarded as liable to affect, that is to say, to restrict the freedom of movement of 
citizens of the Union within the meaning of Article 21 TFEU. 
28 The present Chamber notes that the Republic of Lithuania does not participate in 
the enhanced cooperation under Council Decision (EU) 2016/954 of 9 June 2016 
authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and 
the recognition and enforcement of decisions on the property regimes of 
international couples, covering both matters of matrimonial property regimes and 
the property consequences of registered partnerships. Accordingly, Council 
Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation 
in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of 
decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes […] [repeated information] 
is not applicable to the Republic of Lithuania. 
29 Accordingly, in the absence of any applicable EU legislation on the question 
under consideration, in the opinion of the present Chamber, it is for the domestic 
legal system of the Republic of Lithuania to determine the detailed rules laid 
down by national law and intended to safeguard the rights which individuals 
derive from EU law, provided, first, that those rules are not less favourable than 
those governing rights which originate in domestic law (principle of equivalence) 
and, second, that they do not render impossible or excessively difficult in practice 
the exercise of rights conferred by the EU legal order (principle of effectiveness) 
(see, by analogy, judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 June 2017, [Freitag], 
C-541/15, EU:C:2017:432, judgment of the Court of Justice of 3 July 2014, 
Kamino International Logistics and Datema Hellmann Worldwide Logistics, 
Joined Cases C-129/13 and C-130/13, EU:C:2014:2041 […]). 
REGISTRŲ CENTRAS 
 
9 
30 In that respect, it should first be noted that, in accordance with the provisions of 
the Regulations, the requirement that the marriage contract must contain the 
personal identification number of at least one of the parties to the marriage 
contract, as provided by the Population Register of the Republic of Lithuania, is 
applicable only in the case of marriage contracts concluded in foreign States. 
Thus, the aforementioned requirement is not expressis verbis laid down in the 
Regulations for marriage contracts concluded in the Republic of Lithuania. 
31 On the other hand, it may be assumed that the difference in approach regarding 
the requirement to indicate the personal identification number in the marriage 
contract is due to the rule that data concerning marriage contracts concluded in the 
Republic of Lithuania are provided for recordal in the Register only by notaries 
who have certified the relevant contracts (point 21.1 of the Regulations), while 
natural persons do not have the right to provide such data. In other words, that rule 
implies that when marriage contracts are concluded in the Republic of Lithuania 
under the notarial procedure (and data on such contracts is provided for recordal 
in the Register by notaries), the precise identification of the persons who have 
concluded such contracts is guaranteed. However, in the case of marriage 
contracts concluded in foreign States, the data are provided for recordal in the 
Register by the natural persons who concluded such contracts. Therefore, having 
regard, inter alia, to the very limited nature of the powers available to the 
administrator of the Register (paragraph 21 of the present order), it must be 
considered that the requirement to identify precisely the persons who have 
concluded the marriage contract in question is not only of indisputable 
importance, but is also fundamentally necessary in the public interest. 
32 However, it should be noted that the Regulations do not provide for any other 
alternative to the identification of the parties to a contract concluded in a foreign 
State. Thus, if a marriage contract is concluded in a foreign State where personal 
identification numbers are not used for the purpose of concluding such a contract, 
the requirement laid down in point 67 of the Regulations directly prevents the 
recordal of the relevant contract in the Register. Accordingly, where it is not 
possible to obtain from the competent authorities of such a State an addendum 
(annex) to the contract containing the personal identification number of at least 
one of the parties to the marriage contract, persons who have entered into a 
marriage contract in that State would have to apply to a notary in the Republic of 
Lithuania for the conclusion of a new marriage contract and its recordal in the 
Register. In other words, the situation in question results either in the costs 
(financial, time, and so on) incurred by Union citizens on account of the double 
administrative procedure (in a foreign State that does not use personal 
identification numbers and subsequently also in the Republic of Lithuania) for the 
purpose of concluding a marriage contract, or in the rational and logical decision 
to avoid concluding a marriage contract in a foreign State on account of such 
undesirable consequences. 
33 In that context, the present Chamber wishes to emphasise that the right to freedom 
of movement is reflected in the right of a Union citizen to move temporarily to a 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 20. 12. 2023 – CASE C-789/23 
 
10  
Member State other than his or her Member State of origin for work, study or 
leisure purposes. However, that right also includes the right to settle in another 
Member State in the long term and to build his or her life there (Opinion of 
Advocate General H. Saugmandsgaard Øe of 11 February 2021 in A (Public 
health care), C-535/19, EU:C:2021:114, point 146). In those circumstances, the 
present Chamber harbours doubts as to whether the legislation in question should 
not be regarded as a disincentive for Union citizens to exercise the freedom of 
movement conferred on them by Article 21 TFEU. In particular, the present 
Chamber seeks to ascertain whether Article 21(1) TFEU should be interpreted as 
precluding national legislation under which a marriage contract concluded in 
another Member State of the European Union may not be recorded in the Register 
of Marriage Contracts if the contract does not contain the personal identification 
number of at least one of the parties to that contract, as provided by the Population 
Register of the Republic of Lithuania, where, in circumstances such as those of 
the present case, the competent authorities of the Member State in which the 
marriage contract was concluded refuse to provide an extract from that contract 
supplemented by the relevant personal identification data. 
III. 
34 […] [obligation to make the request pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 267 
TFEU] 
35 In those circumstances, in order to dispel the doubts that have arisen as to the 
interpretation and application of the provisions of EU law relevant to the legal 
relationships at issue in the present dispute, it is appropriate to request the Court 
of Justice to interpret Article 21(1) TFEU. An answer to the question set out in the 
operative part of the present order is crucial for the present case, because it would 
make it possible, while ensuring in particular the primacy of EU law, to take an 
unequivocal and clear decision on the requirement applicable in the present case 
to the recordal of marriage contracts concluded in foreign States in the Register of 
Marriage Contracts, and would also make it possible to guarantee uniform 
national case-law. 
In the light of the foregoing considerations […] [reference to provisions of 
procedural law], the present Chamber 
orders as follows: 
[…] [standard procedural wording] 
The following question is referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union 
for a preliminary ruling: 
‘Must Article 21(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be 
interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a marriage contract 
concluded in another Member State of the European Union may not be recorded 
in the Register of Marriage Contracts if the marriage contract does not contain the 
REGISTRŲ CENTRAS 
 
11 
personal identification number of at least one of the parties to that contract, as 
provided by the Population Register of the Republic of Lithuania, where, in 
circumstances such as those of the present case, the competent authorities of the 
Member State in which the marriage contract was concluded refuse to provide an 
extract from that contract supplemented by the relevant personal identification 
data?’ 
[…] 
[…] […] 
[standard procedural wording and composition of the court]