From recognition to positive obligations: the ECJ’s judgment in Shipov (C-43/24)

 

 

By Marzia Genovese, Postdoctoral Lecturer and Researcher in Public Law at the European Documentation and Research Centre of the University of Pau (France).

Photo: Bulgaria Palace of Justice; photo credit Bim in Garten via Wikimedia Commons

      I.         Introduction

In K.M.H. v Obshtina Stara Zagora (Shipov, C-43/24), the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) held that Article 21 TFEU and Article 4(3) of Directive 2004/38, read in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, preclude national legislation that does not permit a transgender Union citizen to amend certain data recorded in civil-status registers. The judgment builds upon the Court’s recent decision in Mirin and forms part of a broader line of case law concerning the relationship between free movement rights, personal status and gender identity.

The decision will likely be welcomed as a further step in the protection of transgender Union citizens exercising their free movement rights, yet the lines of reasoning adopted by both the Court and the Advocate General (AG) raise a number of conceptual and constitutional questions that remain insufficiently explored.

This contribution argues that Shipov marks a significant development in the evolution of Article 21 TFEU. Unlike Mirin, the case did not involve the recognition of a legal status previously acquired in another Member State. Instead, the Court used Article 21 TFEU to impose a positive obligation affecting the organisation of national civil-status law itself. At the same time, it does so through reasoning that leaves several conceptual and constitutional questions unresolved. In particular, the Court employs notions such as sex, gender and gender identity, without clearly identifying the legal category that Member States are required to recognise or modify. Additionally, the Court’s reasoning raises broader questions regarding the practical scope of Member State autonomy in matters of civil status.

The discussion proceeds in four steps. It first examines the conceptual uncertainty underlying the judgment. It then considers the shift from mutual recognition to self-standing positive obligations under Article 21 TFEU, before analysing the limitations of the AG’s reasoning as well. Finally, it reflects on the implications of Shipov for the relationship between Union citizenship and national competence in matters of civil status.

II. Conceptual ambiguity: what exactly must be changed?

One of the most striking features of Shipov is the conceptual ambiguity underlying the Court’s judgment. Throughout the proceedings, a number of distinct notions appear interchangeably, such as sex, gender and gender identity. Yet neither the Court nor the Advocate General clearly explain the legal relationship between these concepts or identify with precision which of them forms the object of the obligation imposed on Member States.

Such an obligation necessarily presupposes the identification of the legal category to be modified. Is EU law requiring the recognition of a person’s gender identity, the amendment of legal gender or the modification of civil-status records relating to sex? The judgment offers no clear answer.

The ambiguity culminates in the operative part of the judgment, where the Court refers to “data relating to gender, such as sex” (paras 36 and 56). This formulation is difficult to reconcile with a coherent conceptual framework. If sex and gender are distinct categories, as the Court itself appears to assume throughout the proceedings and it is also scientifically established, the judgment fails to explain why they can be treated as interchangeable for the purposes of civil-status registration. Conversely, if the two concepts are understood as functionally equivalent, the Court never justifies the use of separate terminology throughout its reasoning and moves fluidly between references to sex, gender identity and personal appearance without clarifying the legal significance of each concept.

This ambiguity is not merely semantic. It has direct implications for legal certainty. Member States remain, in principle, competent in matters of civil status. If EU law nevertheless requires them to modify certain entries contained in civil-status records, they must be able to determine with reasonable clarity and certainty which legal category is affected and what precisely must be recognised. By treating distinct dimensions as largely interchangeable, the Court risks obscuring the precise basis of the obligation imposed on Member States.

Moreover, the Court’s treatment of intersex and transgender persons illustrates the conceptual difficulties underlying the judgment (para 22). In assessing the Bulgarian legal framework, the Court appears to rely on the fact that national law permits the amendment of civil-status records in certain situations involving intersex persons whilst excluding such amendments for transgender persons. Yet the comparability of those situations is largely assumed rather than demonstrated.

This omission is significant. Intersex variations and transgender identity raise distinct legal and factual questions. The former concern biological conditions that may affect the classification of sex at the time of birth and, consequently, the accuracy of the original civil-status registration. The latter concern the recognition of a gender identity emerging after birth and whose legal implications are conceptually different from the correction of an allegedly inaccurate birth record. The Court does not explain why these situations should be treated as comparable for the purposes of civil-status registration, nor why legal solutions developed in one context should necessarily apply in the other.

Whether the situations ought ultimately to be treated alike is therefore not the central issue. The difficulty lies in the absence of a clear comparability analysis. By moving between different categories without defining the legal relevance of each of them, the judgment further reinforces the conceptual ambiguity already present elsewhere in its reasoning.

This difficulty is compounded by a second and arguably more fundamental question: does Shipov fit within the logic of the Court’s earlier citizenship case law at all?

III. From recognition to self-standing positive obligations

The Court presents Shipov as part of a broader line of case law concerning the exercise of free movement rights by Union citizens. Yet a closer examination reveals that the judgment departs in a significant respect from the logic underlying the Court’s earlier decisions on civil status.

Cases such as Grunkin-Paul, Coman and, more recently, Mirin were all built around a common premise: a legal status had already been lawfully acquired in one Member State and another Member State refused to recognise it. The obstacle to free movement arose from the coexistence of conflicting legal situations within the Union. In those circumstances, the Court relied on Article 21 TFEU to prevent Union citizens from suffering disadvantages resulting from the exercise of their right to move and reside in another Member State.

In Mirin, for example, the applicant had obtained legal recognition of his gender identity in the United Kingdom and sought recognition of that status in Romania. The Court’s intervention therefore remained rooted in a logic of mutual recognition. Romania was not required to create a new legal status; it was required to recognise one already validly established elsewhere in the Union.

Shipov presents a fundamentally different situation. The applicant had not obtained legal recognition of her gender identity in Italy or in any other Member State. No foreign administrative act, judicial decision or civil-status record existed that could serve as the object of recognition. The case therefore lacked the transnational legal element that had justified the Court’s intervention in previous cases. This distinction is not merely factual. It alters the very nature of the obligation imposed by EU law.

In the absence of any status acquired elsewhere, Bulgaria was not asked to recognise an existing legal situation. Rather, it was required to provide a mechanism through which a new legal status could be established under Bulgarian law itself. Article 21 TFEU thus ceases to operate as a principle of recognition and becomes a source of self-standing positive obligations affecting the organisation of national civil-status systems.

The significance of this shift should not be underestimated. Mutual recognition has traditionally allowed the Court to balance free movement rights with Member State autonomy. Whilst Member States remained free to determine the substantive conditions governing civil status within their own legal systems, they could not disregard legal situations lawfully established elsewhere. This logic preserved a degree of constitutional pluralism by distinguishing between the creation of legal status and its recognition.

In Shipov, however, that distinction becomes increasingly difficult to maintain. Once Article 21 TFEU is capable of generating obligations independently of any foreign status requiring recognition, the Court’s review is no longer confined to ensuring the continuity of legal situations across borders. It extends to the substantive content of national rules governing civil status. The competence formally remains national, but the outcome is increasingly shaped by EU law.

IV. The Advocate General’s ‘functional’ solution and its limits

 

If Shipov cannot be really explained through the logic of mutual recognition, a different justification is required. The AG sought to provide one by focusing on the functional role of identity documents in facilitating the exercise of free movement rights. Since identity documents play a crucial role in enabling Union citizens to move and reside freely within the Union, the Member State of nationality could not, in his view, maintain a system that prevented such documents from reflecting a person's lived gender identity.

The most problematic aspect of the Opinion, however, lies elsewhere. In paragraph 94, the AG expressly states that the original indication of the applicant’s sex should not be regarded as erroneous and should not be treated as a mistake requiring rectification. Two paragraphs later, moreover, he recalls the ECtHR’s recognition of the “historical nature” of birth records and of the continuing relevance of the sex assigned at birth for establishing facts predating gender reassignment. Yet the solution advocated by the Opinion ultimately requires the creation of a legal mechanism through which the same birth certificates may be amended in order to reflect a subsequently recognised gender identity.

The resulting tension is difficult to ignore. If the original registration was accurate and birth certificates serve, at least in part, a historical function, the Opinion never adequately explains why EU law nevertheless requires their amendment.

This tension is reinforced by the AG’s own discussion of Article 3(2) of Regulation 2025/1208. There, he acknowledges that EU law does not require Member States to include a reference to sex or gender on national identity cards and permits them to omit such information altogether, unlike the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) standards applicable to passports and other travel documents (all Member States, but not the EU, are parties to the Convention establishing the ICAO). If the objective pursued is the removal of obstacles to free movement, the necessity of amending birth certificates becomes considerably less obvious. The Opinion does not explain why that objective cannot be achieved through less intrusive means. As paragraph 82 of the Opinion makes clear, the perceived necessity of amending the birth certificate stems largely from the fact that Bulgarian identity documents are based upon that record, yet this approach risks extending the reach of Article 21 TFEU into matters that traditionally fall within Member State competence.

The AG’s functional approach thus succeeds in identifying a practical difficulty faced by the applicant, but it never convincingly explains why a birth certificate whose original entries are acknowledged to be accurate must nevertheless be altered in order to comply with EU law.

V. EU citizenship and national autonomy in matters of civil status

The preceding discussion ultimately points towards a broader constitutional issue. If Article 21 TFEU (which sets out EU citizens’ rights to move and reside freely in the EU) can require the amendment of civil-status records in the absence of any foreign status requiring recognition, what remains of Member State autonomy in matters of civil status?

The Court has consistently recognised that matters such as civil status, family status, names and personal identity fall, in principle, within the competence of the Member States (e.g., Runevič-Vardyn). At the same time, however, it has repeatedly held that those competences must be exercised consistently with EU law whenever the exercise of free movement rights is affected. The tension between these two propositions lies at the heart of Shipov.

Here, the Court expressly acknowledges that the issuing of identity documents falls within the competence of the Member State of nationality (para 47), yet it immediately adds that such documents serve to enable the exercise of the rights conferred by Article 21 TFEU. Once that connection is established, national rules governing civil-status registration become subject to review in light of both free movement and the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter, such as Article 7 (respect for private and family life).

This dynamic is further illustrated by the ECJ’s treatment of the Bulgarian Constitutional Court’s reasoning. The latter had previously interpreted the concept of sex contained in the Bulgarian Constitution as referring exclusively to biological sex and justified its interpretative decision in light of broader moral and religious rules and principles “prevailing over the interests of transgender persons” (paras 21 and 46). The ECJ rejected those arguments as potential justifications for the restriction of free movement and ultimately reaffirmed that neither the Member State’s competence in matters of civil status nor moral and religious considerations could justify the obstacles encountered by the applicant (paras 47-48). This logic culminates in paragraph 60 of the judgment, where the ECJ reiterates that rules of national law, even of constitutional rank, cannot undermine the effectiveness of EU law.

From the perspective of EU law, this result is hardly surprising. The principle of primacy would be significantly weakened if Member States could rely upon domestic constitutional concepts to avoid obligations flowing from Union law. Nevertheless, Shipov illustrates how the progressive expansion of Article 21 TFEU may affect the practical scope of Member State autonomy in areas that formally remain within national competence. This point is particularly significant when considered alongside the preceding sections.

To raise this concern is not to suggest that constitutional autonomy should operate as a shield against Union law. Nor is it to deny the legitimacy of protecting Union citizens against discrimination and/or unjustified obstacles to free movement. However, the broader the concept of an obstacle to free movement becomes, the greater the potential reach of EU law into areas that the Treaties continue formally to reserve to the Member States.

In this respect, Shipov may ultimately prove significant not only for legal gender recognition, but also for the constitutional development of Union citizenship itself. The judgment suggests that once a matter can be connected, even indirectly, to the exercise of free movement rights, the scope for maintaining distinct national approaches becomes increasingly narrow. Whether that development represents a natural consequence of Union citizenship or a more profound transformation of the relationship between EU law and national competences remains open to debate.

VI. Conclusion

Shipov is likely to be remembered as an important step in the Court’s case law on the rights of transgender Union citizens, yet its significance extends beyond the specific context of legal gender recognition.

The judgment suffers from a degree of conceptual ambiguity that is difficult to ignore. Throughout its reasoning, the Court moves between references to sex, gender and gender identity without clearly identifying the precise legal category that Member States are required to recognise or modify. This uncertainty is compounded by the Court’s equal treatment of intersex and transgender situations, whose comparability is largely assumed rather than demonstrated.

More fundamentally, Shipov marks an important step beyond the logic that characterised previous case law. Unlike earlier cases, no foreign legal status required recognition here. In this instance, article 21 TFEU was used not to ensure the continuity of a legal situation already established elsewhere in the Union, but to generate a positive obligation affecting the organisation of national civil-status law in circumstances where the transnational element appeared particularly weak. The AG’s attempt to justify that result through the functional role of identity documents is ultimately unpersuasive, not least because it fails to explain why birth certificates whose original entries are acknowledged to be accurate must nevertheless be amended in order to facilitate free movement.

Ultimately, the most significant issue raised by Shipov may not concern legal gender recognition at all, but the limits of Article 21 TFEU itself. Once the latter is capable of generating substantive obligations in areas formally falling within Member State competence, the distinction between the recognition of legal status and its creation becomes increasingly difficult to maintain. Whether the Court has provided a sufficiently clear and principled justification for that evolution remains an open question.