Case C-459/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 3 October 2014  — Fadil Cocaj v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal
Date: 2014-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, civil register, cohabitation, freedom of movement, marriage, residence permit








C_2015007EN.01001202.xml










12.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 3 October 2014 — Fadil Cocaj v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal
(Case C-459/14)
(2015/C 007/17)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fadil Cocaj

Defendant: Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal

Question referred







1)


What is the precise formal and substantive content and the requirements of the registration referred to in Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004?










2)


In what manner, in what form and before which authority must the registration referred to in Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 take place? If the registration has to be effected through an authority, what formal and substantive criteria must that authority fulfil in the Member State in question?










3)


Can the above provisions of the directive — having regard to the content of Article 37 — be interpreted as meaning that the provisions relating to partners concern only different-sex partners or do they also concern same-sex partners?










4)


If the legislation of a Member State grants the status of family member within the meaning of the directive to registered partners, can the directive be interpreted as relating only to different-sex partners?










5)


Can the directive be interpreted as meaning for the purposes of its application, that a registered partnership must be considered to exist if the party appears in the Member State’s register of declarations of partnership?










6)


Can the above provisions of the directive be interpreted as meaning that if a Member State’s legislation does not treat the registered partnership as equivalent in all respects to marriage, such partnerships do not in any circumstances confer the status of family member, even having regard to Article 37?










7)


Can the above provisions of the directive be interpreted as meaning that the equivalence to marriage must encompass all legal situations and consequences? If full equivalence is not required, what aspects of the two statuses must be the same in any event?










8)


Is it or might it be relevant for the purposes of the application of the above provisions of the directive, whether the legislation of a Member State distinguishes between statutory recording (‘bejegyzés’) and registration (‘regisztráció’) or uses the terms interchangeably?










9)


Can Article 37 of the directive be interpreted as meaning that legislation of a Member State which does not provide that partnerships are to be equivalent to marriage must be regarded as more favourable national legislation under Article 37?






(1)  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; OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.