The ruling coalition came to power on a clear promise: to liberalize abortion law and introduce legal recognition for same-sex couples. While abortion bills have reached the committee stage and now await a more favorable political climate – or a president willing to sign them into law, the government bill on civil partnerships was ultimately withdrawn at the end of 2025. A new bill on cohabitation agreements instead seeks to grant both same-sex and opposite-sex couples selected rights currently reserved for married spouses, aiming to make everyday family life easier while deliberately preserving a clear legal and symbolic distinction from marriage. The result is a political compromise within the coalition: a piecemeal framework that risks creating second-class family relationships while leaving some key issues unresolved or overly complicated.

Cohabitation agreement: pseudo-marriage or anything but marriage?

The government draft legislation – the Act on the Status of a Closest Person in a Relationship and on a Cohabitation Agreement (Bill no. 2110) and the Introductory Provisions to that Act (Bill no. 2111) – would establish a new legal institution in Poland: a registered cohabitation agreement conferring on partners the legal status of a “closest person.” This institution would have wide-ranging effects across family and civil law, banking, immigration, and even criminal procedure. Notably, the cohabitation agreement would remain outside the Family and Guardianship Code and would not establish a separate civil status, operating solely as a civil-law arrangement.

Last week, the Sejm voted to refer the government bills for further legislative work. The proposal passed almost entirely along coalition lines, while the opposition and its aconites argued that it threatened marriage. The drafters stress, however, that these contractual civil unions are to remain distinct from marriage and legally less privileged, justified by the “special character” of marriage in Polish law. While Article 18 of the Constitution defines marriage as a union between a woman and a man under state protection, it does not prevent the legislature from extending similar protections to other couples, including homosexual unions. Under the “living tree” interpretation, the Constitution grants special protection to heterosexual marriage but does not preclude other forms of legal recognition. As Professors Ewa Łętowska and Jan Woleński have argued, it could even permit comparable protections for homosexual unions.

A key difference between marriage and the proposed cohabitation agreement concerns obligations: unlike marriage, the draft imposes no duties of fidelity or loyalty. Registered cohabitees may define respect and loyalty for themselves. While this underscores autonomy, it raises questions about whether the model simplifies legal relationships or instead generates uncertainty. Where cohabitees’ rights overlap with those of spouses, the proposal offers meaningful protections, including burial and funeral benefits, compensation upon a partner’s death, health insurance, inheritance, pensions, caregiving allowances, joint taxation, and access to social security and employee pension schemes. It responds to genuine social needs by providing greater stability and legal security for long-term, non-marital couples.

Cohabitation agreements would be concluded before a notary and registered in a separate “closest person” registry. Legal rights would arise only upon registration, involving the Director of the Civil Registry and creating administrative burdens, as well as potential uncertainty if registration were delayed or refused. Removing the option to conclude the agreement before a civil registry official in the presence of witnesses also eliminates symbolic recognition and external markers such as a shared surname. These limitations may reinforce perceptions of “second-class” unions, requiring couples to repeatedly prove their status and the terms of their agreement to authorities and third parties.

A positive feature of the bills is that they permit persons with intellectual or mental disabilities to enter into a cohabitation agreement, in line with the state’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Unlike marriage, the draft imposes no disability-related restrictions. However, given the complex procedure, optional contractual elements, and potential notarial costs, doubts remain as to whether the institution will be practically accessible in practice. Moreover, the broad flexibility and autonomy embedded in the agreement – such as rules on property division or unilateral termination – may not sufficiently protect vulnerable persons, and the possibility of annulment could further add to legal uncertainty for those requiring special safeguards.

Cohabitation agreements under ECHR standards

Recent ECHR judgments – including Przybyszewska and others v. Poland (2023), Formela and others v. Poland (2024), and Szypuła and others v. Poland (2025) – have repeatedly found that same-sex couples in Poland remain in a legal vacuum, unable to regulate essential aspects of their lives or secure official recognition. Although the bills introduce tax exemptions, joint filing, and certain social benefits, they fall short of full protection in key areas such as statutory inheritance, automatic property sharing, and post-breakup maintenance. While the drafts emphasize the autonomy of cohabitees, their contractual nature may in practice leave the weaker party insufficiently protected. However, in light of the actual implementation of these ECHR rulings, current regulations appear largely sufficient.

Yet the government bills fail to regulate the status of children raised by couples in cohabitation agreements – whether same-sex or opposite-sex – raising serious concerns about insufficient protection and compliance with international human-rights standards. In this respect, they are inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, particularly C.E. and Others v. France (2022) and Callamand v. France (2022), which confirms that family-life protection extends to relationships between a child and the person who actually cares for them and that states must provide legal safeguards for such ties. The bills fail to protect children biologically related to one partner, adopted children, or those conceived through IVF within such unions. They do not recognize a family relationship in these situations, nor do they permit joint adoption or the acquisition of parental authority over a partner’s child. Moreover, the drafts make no adjustment to the presumption of paternity: even if a mother enters into a new cohabitation agreement, the presumption in favour of her former husband continues to apply for 300 days following divorce or dissolution of the previous union.

The bill also omits rules on child custody and visitation. While parental rights cannot simply be transferred by agreement, this gap may create practical difficulties. Ideally, a cohabitation agreement could allow the “closest person” to represent a parent in exercising authority, accessing information, or caring for the child in the parent’s absence – reflecting modern household realities, though still requiring the legal parent’s consent. The bill also does not address post-breakup contact between children and a non-parent partner. A child raised for years by a parent and their cohabiting partner could lose meaningful contact if the agreement ends. It is therefore recommended that Article 1136 of the Family and Guardianship Code be amended to include anyone who has provided long-term care for a child. This would recognize significant emotional bonds while preserving the distinction between marriage and cohabitation: contact would remain automatic in divorce but granted on request in cohabitation cases, based on the child’s best interests.

Cohabitation agreements and EU law

The explanatory notes to the government bills claim compliance with EU law, but they only partially meet obligations under EU law and established CJEU case law. CJEU rulings make clear that Member States must recognize the legal effects of same-sex marriages concluded in other EU countries when citizens exercise EU rights. Most recently, in Trojan (2025, C-713/23), the CJEU ruled that national provisions blocking recognition of same-sex marriages contracted abroad violate EU law in the context of free movement.

Bill No. 2111 adjusts certain provisions of the 2006 Act on the Entry, Stay, and Exit of EU Citizens and Their Families to equate cohabitation agreements with spouses’ rights, but access requires concluding the agreement in advance. In practice, this demands prior entry into Poland, restricting rights and often making them inaccessible to third-country nationals, since agreements cannot be concluded before a consul. Critically, the bill neither allows agreements to be formalized abroad nor recognizes same-sex marriages from other EU countries as equivalent to cohabitation agreements, leaving gaps between legal frameworks. The notarial requirement further limits practicality, as couples abroad must return to Poland or contact a Polish notary to terminate an agreement.

The bills also make no provision for recognizing foreign partnerships, applicable law, or foreign court (or other authority) decisions, and omit amendments to the Private International Law Act on recognition of foreign partnerships and judgments. Under the proposed framework, “closest person” status arises only upon registration with the Civil Registry, meaning foreign partnerships remain unrecognized and treated as contractual rather than a form of civil status, even if registered. The drafts further fail to consider Poland joining the enhanced EU cooperation mechanism on recognition of judgments in matrimonial and registered partnership matters (Council Regulations (EU) 2016/1104 and 2016/954).

Further recommendations

The bills contain several legal gaps that require rectification. They should establish a clear appeal procedure for notary refusals to conclude a cohabitation agreement, enabling courts to determine whether legal obstacles exist. Alimony obligations should be mandatory for both parties to prevent economic inequality, in line with the statutory duties of mutual respect, loyalty, and cooperation. Unilateral termination should include a formal notification mechanism to protect both parties and avoid legal uncertainty, and provisions creating legal effects for invalidated terminations should be removed. The draft should also allow integration of existing legal acts – such as powers of attorney, wills, or prior cohabitation agreements – into new agreements, provided they comply with the law, reducing duplication and associated costs while preserving prior arrangements. Additionally, the ministerial decree should clarify the maximum fee: while the bill mentions a 100 PLN registration fee, notarial costs for drafting complex agreements covering property, support, wills, powers of attorney, and shared residence could easily exceed 1,000 PLN plus VAT and certified-copy fees, underscoring the bureaucratic burden and unequal access despite some legal protections.

Long path toward marriage equality

The proposed bills take a step toward implementing ECHR rulings on same-sex partnership rights, yet the notarial cohabitation model offers weaker legal protection than earlier proposals, creates institutional complexities (e.g., a separate registry), and leaves key gaps – including parental rights, recognition of foreign judgments, and partner status between agreement and registration. To fully meet ECHR standards and advance marriage equality, further reform is needed – ideally by recognizing partnerships as a form of civil status, which would strengthen legal protections, simplify administration, and better align Polish law with EU freedom-of-movement rights.

This blog was written as part of a research fellowship at the European University Institute within the NAWA Bekker Program. It draws on the critical assessment expressed in the expert opinion commissioned by the National Chamber of Legal Advisors (co-authored with legal counsels Filip Rakoczy and Emil Koźbiał).

The post Patchwork Law (Love) appeared first on Verfassungsblog.