In a landmark decision on December 18, 2024, the Constitutional Court of Lithuania has ruled that Article 4(2)(16) of the Law on the Protection of Minors Against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information violates multiple sections of the Constitution, specifically Articles 25(1,2,3) and 38(1,2), as well as the constitutional principle of the rule of law.

Key Points of the Ruling

The Court emphasized that while protecting minors through information restrictions is legitimate, such restrictions cannot be used to deny or disregard other constitutionally protected values. The Court specifically found that:

• Information about diverse family models and interpersonal relationships cannot be automatically deemed inappropriate for minors
• The current law impedes minors’ development into mature, well-rounded individuals
• The restrictions are incompatible with the state’s constitutional duty to ensure harmonious and comprehensive child development
• The law fails to uphold respect for human rights, dignity, and democratic values of equality, pluralism, and tolerance

Implications of the Decision

The Court identified several problematic aspects of the current legislation, noting that it:

1. Artificially narrows the constitutional concept of family
2. Unjustifiably restricts information dissemination and minors’ freedom of information
3. Creates conditions that potentially negate constitutional values
4. Fails to ensure the distribution of objective information to minors about real social relationships

This ruling represents a significant step forward for LGBTI+ rights in Lithuania, particularly in ensuring that young people have access to inclusive and comprehensive information about diverse family structures and relationships.

Historical Context and Impact

The law’s journey began in 2002 with the initial adoption of the Law on Protection of Minors. A significant turning point came in 2009 when attempts were made to explicitly ban “promotion” of homosexual relationships. Lawmakers subsequently introduced more subtle language restricting information that “expresses contempt for family values or promotes a concept of marriage and family formation other than that established in the Constitution and Civil Code.”

The real-world impact of these restrictions has been significant:

• In 2012, Lithuanian Gay League’s (LGL) Baltic Pride advertisement faced restrictions, being allowed to air only after 11 PM with an “adults only” rating
• The children’s book “Amber Heart” by Neringa Dangvydė faced censorship in 2014 when the Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences halted its publication, labeling it as “engaged homosexual propaganda”

The latter case eventually reached the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled that restricting children’s access to information depicting same-sex relationships as equivalent to heterosexual relationships violated the European Convention on Human Rights.

While direct enforcement of the provision decreased in recent years, its presence in law continued to cast a long shadow over Lithuania’s LGBTIQ+ community. The provision’s existence created a significant “chilling effect,” leading to self-censorship among LGBTIQ+ individuals, organizations, and media outlets. This contributed to increased minority stress within the community, as individuals and organizations had to constantly evaluate whether their expression, events, or publications might fall foul of the law.

The decision upholds the constitutional understanding that family, as a protected institution, can be formed on bases other than marriage, and emphasizes the importance of providing youth with information that reflects real social relationships and promotes respect for human rights and dignity.