*Update 02.07.2025 we have corrected several points in the article below and apologise for any confusion caused.*
Original article: Have you ever wondered why, in a progressive and inclusive European Union, your registered partnership [1] – fully recognised by your region or Member State as equivalent to marriage – may still be treated as ‘less than’ by the EU institutions’ social security systems?
The unexpected!
One of our colleagues registered her civil partnership with the Member State authority, where the regional law grants the equivalent rights to registered partnerships and marriages (entitlement to a survivor’s pension, joint tax status, immigration rights, etc.). Yet, when she applied for the EU institutions’ household allowance, PMO rejected her request. Twice!
For civil partnerships there is currently only Partial partner-spouse equivalence [2] within the EU institutions. So, while there are 4 days of special marriage/partnership leave [3] available , there is no household allowance [4] or survivor’s pension [5][1] for a surviving partner. This is similar to the situation across Member States (and even within Member States) where non-marital partnerships are treated inconsistently and can often confer different rights[2].
Why?
Because under Annex VII of the staff regulations [6], an unmarried couple is only treated as equivalent to a married couple if that couple cannot legally marry. This clause was initially designed to support same-sex couples in countries where marriage was not an option. But today, most EU Member States allow same-sex marriage.
‘…given that the institution of heterosexual marriage exists in all Member States, the conclusion of a heterosexual registered partnership is never dictated by the legal impossibility of contracting a legal marriage: it is a life choice made freely by two people who, for whatever reason, do not wish to marry. Since heterosexual couples always have access to marriage in a Member State their partnership cannot lead to full partner-spouse equivalence. Consequently, it follows from the text of the Staff Regulations itself that full partner-spouse equivalence may be granted only in the case of a homosexual registered partnership…’ (staff matters>registered partnership [7])
So, whether the couple is heterosexual or same-sex: those who choose legal partnerships for personal, cultural, or legal reasons while marriage is legally available to them are left with only partial equivalence within the EU institution systems.
This distinction not only seems outdated, it can be seen as indirectly discriminatory, but is it really?
Well, currently, a couple of any configuration choosing a partnership where marriage is available would be given only partial equivalence to marriage within the EU institutions, regardless of the Member State status of that relationship.
So, in short, full partner-spouse equivalence is given only where marriage is not available i.e. same-sex couples living in countries where they are not allowed to marry. Nevertheless, the moment such a couple is able to marry then they must do so, otherwise their allowances would be reduced to only partial equivalence.
Is this outdated? Yes! Is this discriminatory? Er….well…maybe
While of the Charter of Fundamental Rights [8] outlines bases for discrimination we’re not sure that they are applicable here.
Non-discrimination
1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. (Article 21)
Current PMO practice and the staff regulations restrict rights based on why and how couples (of any configuration) formalise their unions—regardless of national recognition and legal equality.
If discrimination does exist it might be on insisting on marriage which has religious connotations as opposed to a partnership which has no such connotations, but we see no sexual-orientation discrimination: a same-sex couple choosing partnership over marriage would be in the same situation as a heterosexual couple doing the same.
What Do the Staff Regulations Say?
| Conditions to fulfil [2] | entitlement | |
| Partial partner-spouse equivalence | 1. The couple must produce a legal document recognised as such by a Member State, …
2. Both partners must not be in a marital relationship or in another non-marital partnership. 3. The partners must not be related in any of the following ways: … |
|
| Full (homosexual) partner-spouse equivalence | 1. The couple must produce a legal document recognised as such by a Member State, …
2. Both partners must not be in a marital relationship or in another non-marital partnership 3. The partners must not be related in any of the following ways: … 4. The couple must have no access to legal marriage in a Member State; … |
fully equivalent to a spouse. |
Generation 2004 is calling for better information for informed decision-making together with a broader interinstitutional conversation on the chasms that exist between the most modern practices in Member States and the EU institution rules.
If you or someone you know is having difficulties exercising rights, don’t hesitate to contact us [12].
We are here to help, through mediation, legal advice, and advocacy.
Let’s work together to make EU workplaces fair for all families of all configurations!
—————————————
[1] Please be aware that the the survivor’s pension for a spouse is linked to a minimum length of marriage. We previously wrote about a case where this was deemed discriminatory [13].
[2] There are differences across and between Member States and there are further differences between those national systems and the EU institutions. Two recent examples we’ve highlighted are:
- the Member State gifting of social security contributions [14] (e.g. during military service or caring responsibilities) and the staff regulations’ non-recognition of those contributions on doing a transfer-in of pension contributions made elsewhere
- huge differences in the provision [15] of maternity/paternity leave across Member States and what is available within the EU institutions.
France still permits post-mortem marriage [16] in very specific circumstances which would never meet the 1-year minimum for an EU institution survivor’s pension for the spouse.