Конституционный суд
17 апреля 2025 года
Facts
The Government has asked the Constitutional Court to assess the constitutionality of Article 28 of the Law on the Approval, Entry into Force and Implementation of the Civil Code, which postponed the entry into force of the civil partnership regulation, and the Civil Code's stipulation that only a man and a woman may enter into a civil partnership.
Complaint
The Government challenged the provisions on the grounds that they have not entered into force for more than 20 years, as no law has been passed on the registration of partnerships even though that was foreseen in the Code. According to the applicant, this long-standing inaction by the legislator violates the constitutional obligation to ensure the legal recognition and protection of the family as an alternative to marriage, as well as the principles of legitimate expectations and the rule of law, and the applicant's international obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Secondly, the provision which allows the registration of partnerships only between a man and a woman discriminates against same sex couples, contravenes the constitutional principle of equality, violates the right to dignity and private life, and is not in line with Lithuania's international obligations.
Court‘s ruling
The Court noted that the parliemant has not fulfilled its obligation under Article 28 of the contested law to enact a law regulating the procedure for the registration of partnerships for more than 24 years, an unreasonable length of time that clearly exceeds any reasonable period of time for the legislative and other steps to be taken to enact the law, and it is not clear when it will do so. As a result, cohabitants who have not registered their marriage cannot benefit from legal protection.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Article 28 of the Law is contrary to the constitutional principles of the rule of law and responsible governance.
Deciding on the restriction on same sex couples entering into a partnership, the Court noted that the legislator has a duty to ensure the legal recognition and protection of unmarried couples whose cohabitation is based on the content of a family relationship of a permanent or lasting nature, Otherwise, the dignity of the persons forming the couple, as protected by the Constitution, would not be guaranteed, the right of such persons to protection of their private and family life would be infringed, the protection of the family as enshrined in the Constitution would not be guaranteed, the conditions for the proper functioning of the family would not be met, the family relationship would not be strengthened, and the rights and legitimate interests of the members of the family would not be protected.
The Court noted that the legislator may not establish a legal regulation which would create preconditions for discrimination against the participants in family relations on the grounds of their sexual orientation, i.e. it may not establish a legal regulation under which the form of legal recognition and protection provided for by law is reserved for couples of different sexes and is not available to same sex couples. Accordingly, the Court declared the restriction on same sex couples to enter into a civil partnership unconstitutional.
The Court noted that the provisions of the Civil Code governing partnership relations would enter into force upon the entry into force of this Resolution.
There is no statutory procedure for the registration of a partnership under the Civil Code. Thus, as long as the legislator has not laid down a procedure for the registration of a partnership (or otherwise regulated the legal recognition and protection of unmarried couples whose cohabitation is based on the content of a family relationship of a permanent or lasting nature), the right of persons to a partnership (including registration) may be exercised by applying to the courts in accordance with the procedure laid down by law.
At the same time, the Court emphasized that the possibility for the courts to fill gaps in the law does not mean that the legislator is not under an obligation to lay down by law, within a reasonable period, and in compliance with the Constitution, an appropriate legal regulation of the relationships in question.
The Court pointed out that other rights and obligations normally considered important for the life of the partners, such as inheritance, mutual maintenance, rights in personal health care, rights and obligations in respect of children, etc., are not yet regulated. The Court noted that, while the legislator has the discretion to choose the specific form of legal recognition and protection to be afforded to them (such as the possibility to register a partnership), it is important that a comprehensive legal framework is established in such a way as to ensure that the protection afforded is sufficient, covering both property and other aspects inherent in family life.