1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 21(1) TFEU.
2 The request has been made in proceedings between I. J. and the Registrų centras VĮ (Registers Centre, Lithuania), concerning the refusal by the Registers Centre of the request made by I. J. for the registration of information relating to her matrimonial property regime in the Register of Marriage Contracts.
3 Article 21(1) TFEU provides: ‘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.’
4 Article 3.101 of the Lietuvos Respublikos civilinis kodeksas (Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania; ‘the Civil Code’), entitled ‘Marriage contract’, provides: ‘The marriage contract is an agreement, concluded by the spouses, which determines their property rights and obligations during marriage, as well as in the event of divorce or legal separation (separation).’
5 Article 3.103 of the Civil Code, entitled ‘Form of the marriage contract’, is worded as follows: ‘1. The marriage contract shall be concluded by notarial act. 2. The marriage contract and any amendments thereto shall be entered in the Register of Marriage Contracts … 3. The marriage contract and any amendments thereto may be relied on against third parties only if the contract and its amendments have been entered in the Register of Marriage Contracts. That rule does not apply if, at the time of the conclusion of a legal act, the third parties were aware of the marriage contract or of any amendments thereto.’
6 By the Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės nutarimas Nr. 1284 ‘Dėl Vedybų sutarčių registro nuostatų patvirtinimo’ (Resolution No 1284 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania approving the Regulations of the Register of Marriage Contracts) of 13 August 2002 (Žin., 2002, No 82-3523), the Government of the Republic of Lithuania adopted the Regulations of the Register of Marriage Contracts. Those regulations have been amended, the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings being, according to the referring court, that of 10 September 2015, as amended by the Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės nutarimas Nr. 773 (Resolution No 773 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania) of 8 July 2020 (TAR, 2020, No 2020-15562) (‘Regulations of the Register of Marriage Contracts’).
7 Under point 13 of the Regulations of the Register of Marriage Contracts: ‘The following shall be registered in the Register: 13.1. marriage contracts; … 13.3. the facts of division of property as set out in the [Civil Code].’
8 Point 17 of those regulations provides: ‘The following information relating to the division of property shall be recorded in the Register: 17.1. the identification code of the division of property; 17.2. the basis on which the division of property was established (agreement or judicial decision); 17.3. the date of authentication of the division of property agreement (“the division agreement”) or the date of the judgment relating to the division of common property (“the decision on the division of property”); 17.4. personal information (personal identification number, first name and surname; if personal information in the Population Register is missing, date of birth, first name, surname) of natural persons who have entered into the division agreement or whose property has been divided by way of judicial decision; … 17.7. the surname and first name of the notary and the name of the notarial practice which certified the division agreement, or the amendment or termination thereof, or the name of the court which handed down the decision on the division of property; … 17.9. the legal regime established by the division agreement or the decision on the division of property; … 17.12. the date and time of the registration of the division of property in the Register or the deletion thereof from the Register, and the registration or amendment of information relating to that division.’
9 Chapter IV of those regulations governs the registration in the Register of legal facts and subject matter. That chapter comprises, inter alia, points 67 and 68, which are worded as follows: ‘67. A marriage contract or a cohabitation contract concluded in a foreign State may be entered 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 Lithuanian Population Register. 68. Where one of the spouses or cohabitants wishes to have (i) a marriage contract or cohabitation contract certified in a foreign State, (ii) amendments to such a contract, or (iii) information concerning the termination of such a contract, entered in the Register, he or she may submit those information, personally or through an authorised person, by post or electronically, to the administrator of the Register in accordance with the procedure laid down by that administrator.’
10 The appellant in the main proceedings is an EU citizen registered in the Population Register of the Republic of Lithuania. On that basis, she possesses a personal identification number provided by the administrator of the Register and an identity card on which that number appears.
11 In 2006, the appellant in the main proceedings and C.B., an Italian national, married in Italy. The marriage was entered in the marriage register of an Italian municipality. The marriage certificate states that the spouses had chosen the regime of separation of property during marriage.
12 The marriage in question was transcribed in Lithuania with the General Register Office.
13 On 15 February 2022, the appellant in the main proceedings applied to the Registers Centre, requesting the registration of a legal fact relating to her matrimonial property regime, namely the division of property between the spouses, in the Register of Marriage Contracts.
14 By decision of 9 March 2022, the Registers Centre rejected that application, on the ground, first, that a natural person was not entitled to provide to the Registers Centre information relating to the division of property between spouses, such that the division of property at issue could not be entered in the Register of Marriage Contracts at the request of the appellant in the main proceedings. Secondly, the Registers Centre stated that the marriage certificate submitted by the appellant could be entered in the Register of Marriage Contracts as a marriage contract provided that an addendum to the marriage certificate were to be submitted, containing the Lithuanian personal identification number of at least one of the two spouses, and certified by a notary or by any other competent Italian public official.
15 The appellant in the main proceedings subsequently submitted a copy of an email, from which it is apparent that she applied to the relevant Civil Registry Office in Italy for the issuance of a copy of the marriage certificate which included the appellant’s Lithuanian personal identification number as it appeared on her identity card. That registry office refused to add that reference to the marriage certificate on the ground that it was unable to certify the authenticity of the personal identification number belonging to the appellant in the main proceedings.
16 The appellant then brought an action before the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Regional Administrative Court, Vilnius, Lithuania) against the decision of 9 March 2022. By judgment of 29 June 2022, that action was dismissed as unfounded on the ground, in particular, that the requirements for registration in the Register of Marriage Contracts of a ‘contract concluded in a foreign State’, as laid down in point 67 of the Regulations of the Register of Marriage Contracts, were not satisfied since the marriage contract did not contain the Lithuanian personal identification number of at least one of the parties to that contract.
17 The appellant in the main proceedings brought an appeal against that judgment before the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania), which is the referring court.
18 As a preliminary point, that court observes that the appellant in the main proceedings is seeking, in fact, to have her marriage contract, which was concluded in a Member State other than the Republic of Lithuania, registered in the Register of Marriage Contracts, and not the division of property to which the spouses consented. Her legal situation arises from point 68 of the Regulations of the Register of Marriage Contracts, under which one of the spouses may apply to have a marriage contract certified ‘in a foreign State’ entered in the Register of Marriage Contracts in Lithuania.
19 The referring court observes, in that regard, that such registration in the Register is subject to the requirement, laid down in point 67 of those regulations, that the marriage contract at issue contain the Lithuanian personal identification number of at least one of the parties to the contract.
20 The referring court notes that the Lithuanian personal identification number belonging to the appellant in the main proceedings does not appear on her marriage certificate, on account of the refusal on the part of the relevant Italian Civil Registry Office to enter that information, with the result that the requirement laid down in point 67 of those regulations has not been satisfied.
21 That court states that such a requirement is, however, laid down only in respect of marriage contracts concluded outside Lithuania, and that the Regulations of the Register of Marriage Contracts do not provide for any alternative as regards the identification of the parties to a marriage contract concluded ‘in a foreign State’.
22 Against that background, the referring court asks whether the rules introduced by the Regulations of the Register of Marriage Contracts may be regarded as being capable of restricting the right of every EU citizen to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, as enshrined in Article 21(1) TFEU.
23 In those circumstances, the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘Must Article 21(1) [TFEU] 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 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 information?’
24 The Lithuanian Government submits that the request for a preliminary ruling is inadmissible. It claims that, following the amendments made to the Regulations of the Register of Marriage Contracts through the adoption of legislation that entered into force on 1 January 2023, those regulations no longer provide that a marriage contract concluded abroad must indicate, for the purpose of entering that contract in the Register of Marriage Contracts, the Lithuanian personal identification number of at least one of the two spouses. Thus, the question referred for a preliminary ruling is irrelevant and, consequently, it is no longer necessary for the Court to rule on that question.
25 In response to a request for information addressed by the Court to the referring court on 16 October 2024, the latter stated that those amendments are not applicable ratione temporis to the main proceedings.
26 Furthermore, that court stated that the appellant in the main proceedings had not withdrawn her appeal and that, according to the information available to that court, she had not submitted a new application for registration in the Register of Marriage Contracts subsequent to the entry into force of those amendments. It follows, according to the referring court, that it is still required to rule on the legality and merits of the decision of 9 March 2022.
27 In that connection, the Court has repeatedly pointed out that the procedure provided for in Article 267 TFEU is an instrument of cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts, by means of which the Court provides the national courts with the points of interpretation of EU law which they need in order to decide the disputes before them and that the justification for a reference for a preliminary ruling is not that it enables advisory opinions on general or hypothetical questions to be delivered, but rather that it is necessary for the effective resolution of a dispute (see, to that effect, judgments of 16 December 1981, Foglia, 244/80, EU:C:1981:302, paragraph 18, and of 9 January 2024, G. and Others (Appointment of judges to the ordinary courts in Poland), C‑181/21 and C‑269/21, EU:C:2024:1, paragraph 62).
28 As is apparent from the very wording of Article 267 TFEU, the preliminary ruling sought must be ‘necessary’ to enable the referring court to ‘give judgment’ in the case before it (judgments of 17 February 2011, Weryński, C‑283/09, EU:C:2011:85, paragraph 35, and of 9 January 2024, G. and Others (Appointment of judges to the ordinary courts in Poland), C‑181/21 and C‑269/21, EU:C:2024:1, paragraph 63).
29 The Court has thus pointed out that it is apparent from both the wording and the scheme of Article 267 TFEU that a national court or tribunal is not empowered to bring a matter before the Court by way of a reference for a preliminary ruling unless a case is pending before it, in which it is called upon to give a decision which is capable of taking account of the preliminary ruling (see, to that effect, judgments of 21 April 1988, Pardini, 338/85, EU:C:1988:194, paragraph 11, and of 9 January 2024, G. and Others (Appointment of judges to the ordinary courts in Poland), C‑181/21 and C‑269/21, EU:C:2024:1, paragraph 64).
30 In the present case, it follows from the information in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the present judgment that the Court’s answer to the question raised by the referring court is necessary to allow the referring court to rule on the action, still pending before it.
31 It follows that the request for a preliminary ruling is admissible.
32 By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 21(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which the registration of a marriage contract concluded in another Member State in the Register of Marriage Contracts is subject to the requirement that that contract contain the personal identification number, issued by that first Member State, of at least one of the two spouses, when such a requirement is not laid down in respect of the registration, in that register, of a marriage contract concluded in that Member State.
33 In that connection, it must be borne in mind that EU citizenship enjoyed by the appellant in the main proceedings under Article 20(1) TFEU constitutes the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States (see, to that effect, judgments of 20 September 2001, Grzelczyk, C‑184/99, EU:C:2001:458, paragraph 31; of 4 October 2024, Mirin, C‑4/23, EU:C:2024:845, paragraph 51; and of 29 April 2025, Commission v Malta (Citizenship by investment), C‑181/23, EU:C:2025:283, paragraph 92).
34 That status enables those among such nationals who find themselves in the same situation to enjoy, within the scope ratione materiae of the Treaty, the same treatment in law irrespective of their nationality, subject to such exceptions as are expressly provided for in that regard (see, to that effect, judgments of 20 September 2001, Grzelczyk, C‑184/99, EU:C:2001:458, paragraph 31, and of 25 July 2018, A (Assistance for a disabled person), C‑679/16, EU:C:2018:601, paragraph 56).
35 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 (judgments of 24 November 1998, Bickel and Franz, C‑274/96, EU:C:1998:563, paragraphs 15 and 16, and of 25 July 2018, A (Assistance for a disabled person), C‑679/16, EU:C:2018:601, paragraph 57).
36 As EU law currently stands, the establishment of registers of marriage contracts and the rules governing the operation thereof come within the competence of the Member States. Nevertheless, Member States must, in exercising that competence, comply with EU law, in particular the provisions of the FEU Treaty on the right conferred on all EU citizens to move and reside within the territory of the Member States, by recognising, for that purpose, the civil status of persons that has been established in another Member State in accordance with the law of that other Member State (see, to that effect, judgments of 2 October 2003, Garcia Avello, C‑148/02,EU:C:2003:539, paragraph 25; of 14 December 2021, Stolichna obshtina, rayon Pancharevo, C‑490/20, EU:C:2021:1008, paragraph 52; and of 4 October 2024, Mirin, C‑4/23, EU:C:2024:845, paragraph 53).
37 In the present case, it is common ground that the appellant in the main proceedings has, in her capacity as an EU citizen, exercised her freedom of movement. In exercising that right, she concluded a marriage contract in Italy which she now wishes to have registered in the Register of Marriage Contracts in Lithuania.
38 That registration in the register was refused on the ground that that contract did not contain the personal identification number, as provided by Lithuania, of at least one of the two spouses.
39 In the first place, it is clear from the order for reference that the requirement that the personal identification number of at least one of the two spouses be included in the marriage contract is laid down only in respect of marriage contracts concluded in a Member State other than the Member State of registration.
40 In the second place, it should be observed, as the Advocate General does in points 59, 61 and 77 of his Opinion, that the form of a public act is governed by the law of the Member State in which that act was drawn up. Compliance with the requirement that the personal identification number of at least one of the two spouses be included in the marriage contract therefore depends on the formal requirements laid down by the law of the place where the contract was concluded.
41 In the present case, the national legislation of the Member State of registration - namely, the Republic of Lithuania - distinguishes between (i) marriage contracts concluded within its territory, which can be entered in the Register of Marriage Contracts without any particular requirement regarding the inclusion of the personal identification number as provided by that Member State, and (ii) those concluded in another Member State, which must contain such a number, irrespective of the formal requirements laid down by the law of the place where the contract was concluded.
42 In this respect, the Court has repeatedly ruled that national legislation which places certain of the nationals of a Member State at a disadvantage simply because they have exercised their freedom to move and to reside in another Member State is a restriction on the rights conferred by Article 21(1) TFEU on every citizen of the European Union (see, to that effect, judgments of 18 July 2006, De Cuyper, C‑406/04, EU:C:2006:491, paragraph 39, and of 19 November 2020, ZW, C‑454/19, EU:C:2020:947, paragraph 30).
43 As the Advocate General observes, in essence, in point 54 of his Opinion, the refusal to register the marriage contract in the Register of Marriage Contracts has an impact on the legal situation of the spouses, in that it deprives them of the possibility of benefiting from a measure provided for in national law which serves to ensure the protection of their property interests.
44 It must therefore be held that legislation of a Member State under which the registration of a marriage contract concluded in another Member State in the Register of Marriage Contracts is subject to the requirement that that contract contain the personal identification number, issued by that first Member State, of at least one of the two spouses, establishes a difference in treatment between citizens of that Member State who have exercised their right of movement and residence and those who have not.
45 That difference in treatment is liable to affect or even restrict the right of movement and residence of EU citizens, within the meaning of Article 21(1) TFEU.
46 That said, in accordance with settled case-law, a restriction on the right of movement and residence of EU citizens, which is independent of the nationality of the persons concerned, may be justified if it is based on objective public-interest considerations and is proportionate to the legitimate objective pursued by the national legislation in question. A measure is proportionate when, while appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective pursued, it does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain that objective (see, to that effect, judgments of 18 July 2006, De Cuyper, C‑406/04, EU:C:2006:491, paragraphs 40 and 42, and of 19 November 2020, ZW, C‑454/19, EU:C:2020:947, paragraph 36).
47 In that regard, it should be noted that the Lithuanian Government claims that the requirement that the marriage contract concluded in a Member State other than the Member State of registration include the personal identification number of at least one of the two spouses had as its objective to allow the identification of persons who have concluded that contract and to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of the information contained in the Register of Marriage Contracts. It explains, in that connection, that the requirement in question stemmed from the fact that the information relating to marriage contracts concluded in a Member State other than the Member State of registration could be provided by natural persons themselves, whereas information relating to marriage contracts in Lithuania could be provided only by a notary who had certified the marriage contract, or by a court, using dedicated software.
48 As the Advocate General observes, in essence, in points 46, 65 and 66 of his Opinion, registers of marriage contracts ensure the accuracy and authenticity of the information they contain, thereby contributing, through the publicity that such registers institute, to legal certainty, with the result that the establishment of those registers is based on objective public-interest considerations capable of justifying a restriction on the right conferred on all EU citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, as enshrined in Article 21(1) TFEU.
49 Accordingly, inasmuch as the personal identification number constitutes a piece of information that ensures the correct identification of natural persons, the requirement that it be included in the marriage contract where that contract is concluded in a Member State other than the Member State of registration, and where it is provided to the Register of Marriage Contracts by the natural persons themselves, is an appropriate means of attaining the objective of ensuring the accuracy and authenticity of the information contained in that register, which objective is pursued by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings.
50 By contrast, as regards the necessity of that requirement, it should be observed, as the Advocate General notes in point 74 of his Opinion, that the personal identification number is not the only information which makes it possible to ensure the correct identification of the person wishing to register his or her marriage contract in the Register of Marriage Contracts. Other information contained in the contract, such as, inter alia, the surname, first name, date and place of birth of that person and, as the case may be, the number of the document used when the marriage contract was concluded, may be capable of ensuring the accuracy and authenticity of the information contained in that register, which matter is, however, for the referring court to determine.
51 If that is the case, the requirement that the personal identification number of at least one of the two spouses be included in the marriage contract concluded in a Member State other than the Member State of registration must be regarded as going beyond what is necessary to attain the objective pursued.
52 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the question raised is that Article 21(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which the registration in the Register of Marriage Contracts of a marriage contract concluded in another Member State is subject to the requirement that that contract contain the personal identification number, issued by that first Member State, of at least one of the two spouses, where such a requirement is not laid down in respect of the registration, in that register, of a marriage contract concluded in that Member State and where the information contained in that contract makes it possible to identify the persons who concluded that contract.
53 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.