Following the Constitutional Court’s landmark April 2025 ruling on partnership rights, the National LGBT Rights Organization LGL has been closely monitoring political developments regarding implementation of this decision. The formation of Lithuania’s new government under Prime Minister Inga Ruginienė, following former Prime Minister Gintautas Paluckas’s resignation in July amid corruption allegations, presents both opportunities and uncertainties for advancing LGBTQ+ rights in Lithuania.

A Government Born from Crisis

Lithuania’s 19th government collapsed in August 2025 when Prime Minister Paluckas resigned following investigations into his business dealings, including preferential loans and questionable financial activities involving companies he partly owned. His resignation, less than a year after taking office in December 2024, triggered the dissolution of the entire cabinet and necessitated formation of a new government.

In August 2025, parliament approved Inga Ruginienė as Lithuania’s new Prime Minister with 78 votes in favor and 35 against. Ruginienė, a former labor union leader who joined the Social Democratic Party just before the 2024 elections, had served as Minister of Social Security and Labour under Paluckas. The new coalition government comprises the Social Democrats, Nemunas Dawn, and the Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Union and Christian Families Alliance, holding 82 of 141 seats in parliament.

Mixed Signals on Partnership Rights

The past months have brought a series of statements from government leadership that create significant uncertainty about whether Lithuania will fulfill its constitutional obligations in a timely and adequate manner:

Positive indicators include:

• Prime Minister Ruginienė supports same-sex unions and stated in August that she would renew discussions on enshrining same-sex unions into law
• Her acknowledgment in July that the Constitutional Court’s decision requires renewed parliamentary discussions
• The coalition agreement allowing free votes on partnership and related issues
• Her September statement that “something” will likely emerge from the Justice Ministry because “the Constitutional Court decision cannot be ignored”

However, concerning developments have also emerged:

• The Government Program published September 9 contains no concrete commitment to partnership legislation
• Justice Minister Rita Tamašunienė stated September 21 that she does not plan to prepare partnership legislation from the Justice Ministry, despite the previous government having committed to draft partnership legislation by October 2025 through Ministry of Justice.
• The Minister suggested instead relying on existing “close relationship” amendments that have been stalled for years
• Prime Minister Ruginienė warned that any proposal may not satisfy those waiting for partnership rights
• Fundamental rights have been relegated to a coalition agreement appendix for “free vote” issues

The Constitutional Mandate Remains Clear

We must emphasize what the Constitutional Court ruled:

The current legal framework that restricts partnership to opposite-sex couples and delays implementation of partnership provisions violates the Constitution. The Court authorized same-sex couples to register partnerships through courts immediately, while clearly indicating that proper legislation must be enacted.

This was not a suggestion for future consideration, it was a finding of constitutional violation requiring remedy.

Our Concerns About Current Approaches

The “close relationship” amendments proposed by Minister Tamašunienė appear insufficient to address the Constitutional Court’s concerns. These amendments:

• Have been stalled in the Seimas for years without resolution
• May not provide the comprehensive legal protections the Court’s ruling suggests are required
• Risk creating a second-tier status rather than genuine partnership equality

The absence of partnership from the Government Program is particularly troubling given that the previous government’s program—which also promised only to combat hate crimes against LGBT people—accomplished nothing substantive. Constitutional obligations should not be treated as optional policy priorities to be addressed “if time permits.” They require clear commitment and timelines.

The contradictory statements from government leadership raise serious questions. Prime Minister Ruginienė’s characterization of potential legislation as “something” that will “probably” emerge, combined with Justice Minister Tamašunienė’s flat refusal to prepare such legislation, suggests either a lack of coordination or a lack of genuine commitment—neither of which inspires confidence.

The characterization of partnership as a “values issue” for free voting fundamentally misconstrues what is at stake. While we respect that coalition members hold diverse views, implementing constitutional requirements is a legal obligation, not a matter of personal conscience. The coalition agreement that places partnership alongside same-sex marriage as issues requiring special permission for consideration treats fundamental rights as political bargaining chips.

What Adequate Implementation Requires

Any partnership legislation claiming to implement the Constitutional Court’s ruling must:

1. Be gender-neutral and available to all couples
2. Provide meaningful legal protections comparable to those available to married couples
3. Include clear, accessible registration procedures
4. Address the needs of families, including parental recognition
5. Meet Lithuania’s international human rights obligations

We are particularly concerned that statements suggesting any proposal “won’t satisfy” those waiting for partnership rights may indicate plans for inadequate half-measures that fail to address the constitutional deficiencies the Court identified.

A Call for Clarity and Commitment

LGL calls on the Government and Seimas leadership to:

Clarify the Government’s position: Will the Justice Ministry or another ministry prepare comprehensive partnership legislation? What is the timeline? Will it adequately address the Constitutional Court’s concerns? The current confusion between the Prime Minister’s vague promises and the Justice Minister’s outright refusal to act is unacceptable.

Include partnership in government priorities: The Government Program should be amended to include explicit commitment to partnership legislation with concrete timelines. Constitutional compliance cannot be relegated to aspirational language about combating hate crimes.

Engage stakeholders meaningfully: Partnership legislation should be developed in consultation with LGBTQ+ organizations, legal experts, and affected communities—not negotiated solely within coalition politics or dismissed based on one minister’s personal views.

Recognize the urgency: Same-sex couples have been waiting for legal recognition for years. The Constitutional Court has now ruled the current situation unconstitutional. The government’s formation was delayed by a corruption scandal—further delay in addressing constitutional violations would compound the injustice.

Commit to adequacy: Whatever legislation emerges must genuinely implement the Court’s ruling, not merely create the appearance of compliance while maintaining discriminatory treatment.

The Opposition’s Role

We also note Prime Minister Ruginienė’s comments about opposition responsibility. She is correct that parties supporting LGBTQ+ rights must demonstrate that support through their votes, not just their rhetoric.

We call on all Seimas members, coalition and opposition alike, to prioritize human rights and constitutional compliance over political considerations when partnership legislation comes to vote. Political point-scoring cannot take precedence over implementing constitutional requirements.

Conclusion

Lithuania’s new government faces a clear test of its commitment to constitutional governance: will political leadership, particularly Justice Minister Tamašunienė, who holds direct responsibility for implementing legal reforms, demonstrate the courage to act on the Constitutional Court’s unambiguous direction with concrete legislation, clear timelines, and genuine constitutional compliance, or will they continue to defer fundamental rights based on political convenience, thereby betraying both LGBTQ+ citizens and core constitutional principles? LGL hopes for decisive action, prepares for continued advocacy, and remains vigilant in holding institutions accountable to constitutional principles and human rights obligations.