Lithuania’s Constitutional Court delivered a landmark decision on April 17, 2025, declaring that legal regulations related to civil partnerships violate the country’s constitution. The Court ruled that Civil Code Article 3.229, which restricts partnerships only to male-female couples, discriminates against same-sex couples and contradicts constitutional principles of human dignity, privacy protection, equality, and family protection.

“For more than two decades, LGBTIQ individuals in Lithuania have lived in legal uncertainty, without rights to protect their families. This systemic failure to create a legal framework for recognizing and protecting same-sex family relationships contradicts Lithuania’s constitutional principle of equality, international human rights commitments, and Lithuania’s geopolitical orientation. Lithuania remains the only Baltic state that has not adopted an institution (marriage or partnership) that would ensure dignity and relationship protection for same-sex families,” says LGL leader Vladimir Simonko.

The Court also found fault with the legislature’s 24-year failure to implement partnership registration procedures, calling this delay “unreasonably long” and a violation of constitutional principles of legal certainty and responsible governance. As a result of the ruling, partnership provisions in the Civil Code will now take immediate effect, with the Court stating that individuals can exercise their partnership rights through the court system until proper registration procedures are established.

In its decision, the Court emphasized that lawmakers must create comprehensive regulations covering various aspects of partners’ lives, including inheritance rights, mutual support obligations, healthcare decisions, and responsibilities toward children.

The Constitutional Court of Lithuania began examining a case on April 8, 2025, regarding the constitutionality of legal regulations related to partnership. The case, conducted through written proceedings, stems from a request filed by the Government of Lithuania.

Core Issues Under Examination

The Constitutional Court will evaluate two main legal provisions:

1. Civil Code Implementation Act, Article 28: This provision stipulates that regulations regarding provisions regarding unregistered cohabitation will only come into force after the enactment of a law specifically governing partnership registration procedures. The Government argues that this effectively makes a constitutional right entirely dependent on a procedural implementation condition.
2. Civil Code Article 3.229: This provision allows for partnership registration only between a man and a woman. The Government questions whether this limitation is constitutional in light of non-discrimination principles.

Government’s Arguments on Implementation Act

According to the Government’s petition, the current legal framework in Article 28 of the Civil Code Implementation Act contradicts constitutional principles by:

• Violating the principles of legitimate expectations and the rule of law
• Making the constitutional right to legal recognition and protection of family life completely dependent on legislative discretion
• Negating the constitutional right to legal recognition and protection of family relationships for unmarried cohabitating persons
• Failing to fulfill Lithuania’s international obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights

The Government contends that the legislature cannot establish regulations that fail to protect constitutionally guaranteed rights or safeguard legitimate expectations arising from the Constitution.

Government’s Arguments on Same-Sex Partnerships

Regarding Civil Code Article 3.229, the Government argues that:

• The Constitutional Court has previously established its authority to review the constitutionality of laws that have been adopted and officially published, even if they haven’t yet entered into force
• All families that correspond to the constitutional concept of family deserve protection under Articles 38(1) and 38(2) of the Constitution, when interpreted together with Article 29 on equality
• This protection should extend to same-sex couples who meet the constitutional definition of family
• The current provision discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation against same-sex individuals who have established family relationships
• This discrimination violates constitutional rights to dignity and protection of private life
• The current provision fails to ensure proper implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights as an integral part of Lithuania’s legal system

Next Steps

This case marks a significant moment in Lithuania’s ongoing debate about partnership rights and could have far-reaching implications for the legal recognition of various family structures, particularly for same-sex couples seeking legal recognition and protection.

The Lithuanian Gay League (LGL), as Lithuania’s national LGBTI rights organization, welcomes the Constitutional Court’s decision which  a crucial opportunity to address a long-standing legal gap that has denied same-sex couples equal recognition and protection under Lithuanian law.

Though, as no binding timeline for implementation was established by the Constitutional Court, LGBTIQ persons will still need to resort to court proceedings to have their relationship recognized.

For over two decades, LGBTI Lithuanians have lived in a legal limbo, with the Civil Code’s provisions on partnership effectively suspended due to the absence of implementing legislation. This systematic failure to provide a legal framework for same-sex partnerships contradicts both Lithuania’s constitutional principle of Equality and its international human rights obligations.

Meanwhile, LGl urges the Legislature, currently led by the Social Democratic Party, to recognize that the current legal framework fails to meet the standards of equality and dignity. All Lithuanian families, regardless of sexual orientation, deserve legal recognition and protection. LGBTIQ persons deserve quality legislation that protects their right to a family and ensures their full participation in society.

Social Democratic MP Gintautas Paluckas on August 21, 2024, claimed that “there is no need to irritate society by bringing partnership legislation to Parliament” because it would not receive majority support. When political leaders use rhetoric about “irritating society” rather than upholding constitutional rights, they abdicate their responsibility to protect all citizens equally.

The Social Democrats, as a party that claims to champion progressive values and social justice, must demonstrate leadership rather than political expediency on this fundamental human rights issue. The Constitutional Court case presents an opportunity for the Parliament to reassess its approach and fulfill its constitutional principle of equality, regardless of perceived political challenges.

We remind political leaders that human rights are not subject to popularity contests. The protection of minority rights is precisely what distinguishes a constitutional democracy from majority rule without constraints.