Background to the complaint

1. On 22 February 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the ‘Court’) ruled that Member States may not refuse to deliver an identity card to their citizens on the sole ground that they have established their domicile in another EU Member State.[1] The case concerned provisions of Romanian legislation which were found to constitute an unjustified restriction on freedom of movement.[2]

2. On 26 September 2024, the complainant, a Romanian citizen residing in another EU Member State, submitted a complaint to the European Commission (infringement complaint CPLT(2024)02324). His concern was that Romania had failed to apply the Court’s judgment. He said that, in July 2024, the Romanian authorities had refused to deliver an ID card to him because he was domiciled in another EU Member State. He further said that the Romanian authorities considered that the Court’s ruling was relevant only for the specific case in the context of which it had been delivered.

3. On 15 October 2024, the Commission replied that it had enquired with the Romanian authorities about their follow-up to the judgment. On 16 September 2024, the Romanian authorities informed the Commission that the Government was taking steps to amend the national legislation. This process required some time. The Commission said that it would keep monitoring the progress.

4. On 13 February 2025, the Commission provided an update to the complainant. It said that it had contacted the Romanian authorities in May and July 2024. Subsequently, the Commission enquired with the Romanian authorities again about the indicative calendar for the adoption of the amendments. The Commission said that it was monitoring the steps taken by Romania.

5. Dissatisfied with the lack of progress, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman on 27 January 2025. He claimed that Romania should comply with the judgment, which produced direct legal effects, without awaiting legislative amendments. In his view, such amendments were not necessary to give effect to citizens’ fundamental rights guaranteed by EU law. He said that the applicant in case C-491/21 ultimately received his ID card although the legislation had not been amended yet.

The inquiry

6. In May 2025, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the actions the Commission had taken to ensure that Romania implements the above judgment of the Court fully, adequately and in a timely way. The Ombudsman emphasised the importance of the case for the fundamental freedoms of Romanian citizens guaranteed by EU law. She emphasised the fact, that in addition to the legislative amendments under way, relevant case-law of the Court required Member State authorities to implement EU law where relevant by disapplying provisions of national law that are incompatible with EU law. This was important to ensure that Romanian citizens can enjoy their EU rights without delay.

7. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman received the reply of the Commission on the complaint and, subsequently, the complainant’s comments on the Commission's reply. The Ombudsman inquiry team also inspected the Commission's file on this case. The Ombudsman further consulted the Romanian Ombudsman, who in turn provided relevant information, and asked the Commission for an update on the situation based on the complainant’s comments and the information from the Romanian Ombudsman.

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

By the Commission

8. The Commission said that, three months after the relevant judgment, that is, on 23 May 2024, it asked the Romanian authorities how they intended to implement it. The Commission expected that implementing the judgment would require internal consultations within the Romanian administration.

9. Having received no reply, the Commission sent a reminder on 29 July 2024.

10. On 16 September 2024, the Romanian authorities replied that legislative work was ongoing to amend the relevant legislative rules.

11. On 11 February 2025, the Commission sent a further letter to Romania. It insisted that it needed to obtain information about how Romania intended to bring both its legislation and practice in line with the judgment.

12. The Commission said that the information received from the Romanian authorities demonstrated that they were committed to implementing the judgment. However, there were technical challenges.

13. In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the Commission sent another reply to the complainant on 22 June 2025. In its reply, the Commission said that Romania had replied to the Commission on 14 March 2025, saying that the adoption of the legislative amendments was imminent. On 27 March 2025, Romania adopted Emergency Order No 17 amending Law No 119/1996 on civil status documents and Government Emergency Order No 97/2005 on the registration, domicile, residence and identity documents of Romanian citizens. The Commission carried out a preliminary analysis and considered that the amendments appeared to address the situation. However, to be applied, the amendments required the adoption of implementing acts within 90 days. That time limit had not expired at the time of writing. The Commission would be able to make a final assessment only once the implementing acts had been adopted.

14. The Commission further confirmed that, according to settled case-law, Member States are required to disapply any provisions of national law that are contrary to EU law. The Commission advised the complainant to consider pursuing the matter before national courts, as it is not the Commission ‘s role to intervene in individual cases.

15. The Commission addressed the complainant’s concern that the new rules would require submitting a new application for an ID card as they would not apply to applications already made. The Commission said that the documents to be submitted based on the newly adopted rules, in particular as regards the proof of residence, had changed and now include proof of residence abroad. A new application including that information may thus be necessary.

16. The Commission further said that it remained in contact with Romania about this matter. The Commission contacted Romania in June 2025 and received a reply in July 2025. In these exchanges, the Commission underlined to the Romanian authorities the need for national authorities to set aside provisions of national law found to be incompatible with EU law.

Information from the Romanian Ombudsman

17. In June 2025, the Romanian Ombudsman informed the European Ombudsman that the relevant legislative procedure was ongoing. The legislative proposal supplementing Government Emergency Order No. 97/2005 had been registered for debate in the Senate on 28 January 2025. On 31 March 2025, the Senate rejected the proposal. On 2 April 2025, the proposal was registered at the Chamber of Deputies. Several Committees of the Chamber of Deputies gave their opinion in April and May 2025. The Romanian Ombudsman said that the procedure was ongoing at the time of writing.

18. The Romanian Ombudsman further said that the aim of the proposal is to allow Romanian citizens, who wish to establish or have established their domicile abroad, to request a Romanian identity card (or electronic identity card) mentioning their country of domicile, in the same situations as when Romanian citizens residing abroad may obtain a Romanian passport. Requests may be made at the diplomatic missions or consular offices abroad, as well as at any public community service for recording persons in Romania. Further to the adoption of Emergency Order No. 17/2025, the Romanian Government had to adopt the relevant implementing rules within 90 days from the date of its entry into force. This time limit had not yet expired at the time of writing, as the relevant act had been published in the Official Gazette on 27 March 2025.

19. Moreover, the Romanian Ombudsman said that, on 28 May 2025, she had addressed the relevant Parliamentary Committees and informed them of the situation reported by the European Ombudsman. The Romanian Ombudsman recommended that the amendments comply with the Court’s ruling.

By the complainant

20. In October 2025, the complainant informed the Ombudsman that Romanian citizens residing in other Member States could still not obtain identity cards. He emphasised that freedom of movement is one of the most important benefits for EU citizens. Therefore, it is important to be able to obtain travel documents. This should be a priority for the Commission.

21. The complainant said that the national amendments in question will allow Romanian citizens to obtain only ‘electronic’ identity cards. The Commission should make a legislative proposal for temporary identity cards allowing travel in case the electronic identity card is lost or damaged.

22. The complainant was surprised to learn that the Commission does not intervene in individual cases. He said that it was difficult for Romanian citizens residing in other Member States to bring court actions against the national administration because they would need to travel to Romania. Moreover, such proceedings are costly. The issue concerns millions of Romanians living outside Romania.

Additional information from the Commission

23. Based on the information provided by the Romanian Ombudsman and the complainant, the Ombudsman asked the Commission for an update on the matter in December 2025 and April 2026. The Commission replied that it would take the information from the Romanian Ombudsman and the complainant into account in its further assessment.

24. Regarding the technical aspects, the Commission said that, in accordance with EU law[3], Member States may no longer issue paper-based identity cards. Member State may only issue secure cards in the credit-card format (ID-1), incorporating a machine-readable zone and a secure contactless chip containing biometric identifiers.

25. The Commission said that it has continued its dialogue with the Romanian authorities in 2026, with a view to ensuring the effective implementation of the judgment in case C­491/21. In this context, the Romanian authorities informed the Commission that implementing the judgment required the adoption of a new legal framework, as well as technical implementation and adjustments at consular level.[4]

The Ombudsman's assessment

26. Freedom of movement is one of the key fundamental freedoms and citizenship rights guaranteed by EU law.[5] In fact, it has been one of the pillars of EU integration.

27. Without a valid travel document, citizens cannot exercise their freedom of movement in practice. Moreover, living in another Member State without an ID card of the home Member State may complicate the exercise of rights as an EU citizen. Thus, this matter falls within the Commission’s priorities to ensure that citizens can enjoy their free movement rights. This is in line with the Commission’s Communication EU law: Better results through better application[6], in which the Commission identifies cases concerning citizens’ fundamental freedoms (freedom of movement) as a matter of priority.[7]

28. The Court delivered its judgment on 22 February 2024. The information provided to the Ombudsman suggests that the issue may not have been fully resolved at national level yet.

29. While the Ombudsman has no mandate regarding the implementation of EU law at Member State level, she notes that citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union should be given full and timely effect in light of the judicial interpretation made by the Court. As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission has a crucial role to play in this regard.

30. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the Commission has broad discretion in deciding whether and when to start infringement proceedings and bring a case before the Court.[8] At the same time, as a matter of good administration, the Commission should be diligent and active in handling infringement cases and do so within a reasonable time.

31. In this case, the Commission contacted Romania to enquire about the implementation of the judgment in May 2024, that is, three months after the Court issued its judgment. Having received no reply, the Commission sent a reminder two months later, in July 2024. In September 2024, Romania replied that it was taking the necessary steps to amend its legislation. The Commission contacted Romania again in February and June 2025 and received replies from Romania in March and July 2025, following which the Commission has pursued its exchanges with Romania in 2025 and 2026. This shows that the Commission continues to follow the matter actively and at reasonable intervals given the time needed by Romania to complete the legislative process and to address technical issues.

32. Although it appears that implementing the judgment required changes to Romanian legislation, it is a concern that EU citizens still appear to be unable to fully enjoy one of their fundamental freedoms under EU law. The Ombudsman trusts that the Commission will finalise without further delay its assessment of whether Romania has brought its legislation and practice fully into compliance with EU law. She encourages the Commission to keep pursuing this matter actively.

33. Given that the matter appears to be evolving at national level and that the Commission is closely monitoring the situation, the Ombudsman considers that no further inquiries are justified at this stage. The Ombudsman nevertheless requests the Commission to update her, within six months, on its assessment of Romania’s compliance with the judgment and any further action taken in that regard.

34. The Ombudsman will also inform the Romanian Ombudsman of the fact that, during this inquiry, the Commission has reminded the Romanian authorities of the power of national authorities to set aside provisions of national law found to be incompatible with EU law.

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion:

Given that the matter appears to be evolving at national level and that the Commission is monitoring the situation, no further inquiries are justified at this stage.

The complainant and the European Commission will be informed of this decision.

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 05/06/2026

 

[1] Judgment of the Court of 22 February 2024, WA v. Direcţia pentru Evidenţa Persoanelor şi Administrarea Bazelor de Date (the Directorate for Personal Records), C-491/21: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9A323285AA24C29E623DD767F7E61BD2?text=&docid=283042&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=14865749

The Court held:

“Article 21 TFEU and Article 45(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) of 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 ..., must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a citizen of the European Union, a national of that Member State who has exercised his or her right to freedom of movement and freedom to reside in another Member State, is refused an identity card that may serve as a travel document within the European Union, on the sole ground that he or she has established his or her domicile within the territory of that other Member State.”

[2] Point 60 of the judgment.

[3] Regulation (EU) 2019/1157 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on strengthening the security of identity cards of Union citizens and of residence documents issued to Union citizens and their family members exercising their right of free movement, replaced by Council Regulation (EU) 2025/1208 of 12 June 2025 on strengthening the security of identity cards of Union citizens and of residence documents issued to Union citizens and their family members exercising their right of free movement: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32025R1208&qid=1773419468470

[4] The Commission provided a copy of its latest correspondence, which it considers confidential.

[5] Article 20(2)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Article 45 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

[6] Communication from the Commission — EU law: Better results through better application, C/2016/8600, OJ C 18,

19.1.2017: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.C_.2017.018.01.0010.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AC%3A2017%3A018%3ATOC

[7] Section 3 of the Communication.

[8] Judgment of the Court of 14 February 1989, Starfruit v Commission, 247/87: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61987CJ0247