After a Constitutional Court ruling found that banning same-sex couples from entering partnerships is discriminatory, Lithuania’s parliament faces mounting pressure to regulate such unions.
Some lawmakers have proposed adopting legislation introduced during the previous parliamentary term, including a Civil Partnership Law or a more limited Close Relationship Law, which would grant fewer rights. Others argue that these proposals could again violate the Constitution, as the court emphasised broader rights for couples.
Currently, same-sex couples may seek partnership recognition through the courts, but legal experts say the process could take at least four to five months.
“We see that a simplified court process could be used. Given the upcoming summer recess and courts’ schedules, I estimate the process would take about four to five months,” said Karolis Kurapka, a partner at the Constat law firm.
Even with a court ruling recognising a partnership, it remains unclear what specific rights would be granted.
“There is no substance to the partnerships, even if they are registered,” said Mindaugas Kukaitis, chair of the Lithuanian Bar Association.
Issues such as surname rights and child support would still require couples to go to court and prove their relationship, Kukaitis added, unlike married couples, who automatically gain such rights through marriage.
“The Constitutional Court hints at broader rights too – those related to children, inheritance, and similar matters,” Kurapka said. “The challenge is how to fill the legal vacuum until legislation is passed, ensuring that all families are respected and have access to rights.”
According to the Constitutional Court, it is the parliament’s responsibility to regulate partnerships through legislation.
“Following the ruling, partnerships, regardless of the gender of the couple, are now effectively legalised in Lithuania. However, the law does not yet regulate how partnerships are established, dissolved, or what rights they entail,” said Laurynas Šedvydis, a member of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party and chair of the parliament’s Human Rights Committee.
The Justice Ministry is preparing draft amendments, Šedvydis said, which would then be evaluated by parliamentary factions. If a consensus is reached, the changes could be passed.
But finding agreement may be difficult. Factions have offered divergent views on how to proceed.
Ignas Vėgėlė, a member of the group of the Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Union and the Christian Families Union, has introduced a bill to eliminate all Civil Code provisions related to partnerships, effectively nullifying the Constitutional Court’s decision.
“By abolishing the institution of partnership, it would no longer exist in the Lithuanian legal system,” Vėgėlė said, “and the parliament would be able to continue and conclude deliberations of the two pending bills.”
One pending proposal is the Civil Partnership Law, introduced by the previous ruling coalition, which is one vote away from adoption. Liberal politicians believe returning to that bill would be the fastest and cleanest solution.
“This would be the quickest and legally clearest path to allow couples to formalise their relationships,” said Viktorija Čmilytė-Nielsen, leader of the Liberal Movement.
Another option is the Close Relationship Law, introduced by conservative lawmaker Paulius Saudargas, which would regulate the legal aspects of relationships but avoid references to “family”. Some believe it could serve as a compromise if amended to better define property relations.
“It would be a fairly good compromise,” said Agnė Širinskienė, a member of the Democratic Union “For Lithuania”.
Within the conservative Homeland Union, opinions on Saudargas’ bill are split.
“Roughly two-thirds would likely support it, while one-third would remain cautious. There haven’t been major shifts in views,” said Mindaugas Lingė, leader of the Homeland Union’s parliamentary group.
Lingė warned that adopting only the Close Relationship Law could lead to another Constitutional Court challenge.
“Based on the Constitutional Court’s language, it would likely suffer the same fate and be ruled unconstitutional,” he said.
Some, like Social Democrat Laurynas Šedvydis, argue that neither option – civil partnership nor close relationship – would be sufficient.
“The Close Relationship Law would significantly reduce the rights already opened up by the Constitutional Court’s decision. The same goes for the civil union proposal,” Šedvydis said.
Meanwhile, Remigijus Žemaitaitis, leader of the Nemunas Dawn party, believes the parliament should do nothing at all, arguing that the Constitutional Court cannot force lawmakers to pass specific legislation.
“This time, the Constitutional Court acted as if the members of parliament were fools. It would be strange and shameful if the parliament rushed to comply,” Žemaitaitis said, adding that he sees no chance of passing such legislation during the current four-year term.
The Constitutional Court has stated that the parliament should act within a “reasonable period”, though it did not define the timeframe.
“There have been cases before – like Rolandas Paksas’ – where it took more than a decade to comply with a European Court of Human Rights ruling,” said Širinskienė.
Paksas’ case involved the implementation of a European court ruling, not a Constitutional Court decision.
“Parliament must ask itself whether it wants to delay and allow rights to be shaped outside of its control, or lead and set the regulatory standards for the future,” Šedvydis said.
While many lawmakers agree on the need for leadership, it remains unclear whether same-sex couples will find quicker relief through court proceedings or legislative action.
Newsletter
Every Friday morning.
