Legal limbo for Lithuania’s same-sex couples as authorities defy court rulings

Court rulings have opened a path to legal recognition for same-sex couples, but the Justice Ministry says it cannot register partnerships without legislation, leaving families in limbo.

A legal standoff over same-sex partnerships in Lithuania is deepening after the Justice Ministry failed to overturn a court ruling ordering the state to register the partnership of two women in Vilnius, yet continues to refuse registration because no procedure has been established by law.

The dispute highlights a growing gap between court decisions recognising same-sex couples and the government’s willingness to implement them. Eighteen months after a Constitutional Court ruling opened the way for couples to seek partnership recognition through the courts, some have secured legal recognition but remain unable to register their relationships.

The Justice Ministry maintains that there are “objective legal obstacles” to implementing the rulings.

“There is no statutory legal basis for such registration, and it has not been regulated in which register and under what procedure a partnership should be registered,” the ministry told BNS. It argued that individual court decisions do not, by themselves, eliminate the legal gap or establish a general registration procedure.

The ministry said it and other state institutions could take the necessary steps once the parliament establishes the required legal framework.

But the lawyer representing the Vilnius couple, Aivaras Žilvinskas, says the government’s position leaves families in uncertainty and imposes unnecessary legal and financial burdens on same-sex partners.

A legal victory without registration

The couple’s case has reached a critical point after several rounds of litigation.

On May 28, the Klaipėda Regional Court rejected the Justice Ministry’s appeal challenging a lower court’s decision to recognise the women’s partnership despite the absence of legislation regulating it.

The ministry subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Lithuania, which declined to accept the appeal in early September, finding that the arguments did not establish that the lower courts had incorrectly interpreted or applied the law.

The ministry can no longer challenge the ruling in this particular case because the three-month deadline for filing a cassation appeal has expired. The Supreme Court is still considering whether the couple should be reimbursed for their legal costs.

“In this case, the ministry can no longer appeal anything concerning the partnership,” Žilvinskas told BNS.

He views the outcome as a precedent for similar cases, arguing that courts should reach consistent decisions when presented with comparable circumstances.

The ministry says it assesses each ruling individually and decides whether to seek a review by a higher court. It has challenged 13 court decisions ordering the registration of same-sex partnerships, according to information it provided to BNS. Three appeals have so far been rejected by regional courts.

The outcomes have not been uniform. On October 8, a district court in Klaipėda recognised a same-sex couple’s partnership but rejected their request to order the state to register it and issue an official document confirming the registration.

The legal uncertainty stems from an April 2025 Constitutional Court ruling that found provisions of the Civil Code unconstitutional because they provided for partnerships only between a man and a woman and tied their registration to the adoption of separate legislation.

Despite that ruling, the parliament has yet to establish a comprehensive legal framework for partnership registration.

‘Families do not disappear’

Žilvinskas argues that recognising a partnership while refusing to register it does not resolve the legal questions facing couples. Instead, it risks forcing them to repeatedly turn to the courts to establish rights that other families can exercise without litigation.

Some laws already recognise certain rights based on family status, such as the right to refuse to testify against a close relative or provisions allowing a family member to live in rented accommodation. Couples whose partnerships have been recognised by courts may be able to rely on that status in such situations.

Other areas, including inheritance, taxation and benefits, remain less clear, the lawyer said. Partners may have to bring separate cases to establish whether they are entitled to the same rights as spouses or other family members.

“Each couple will have to prove it separately. They could go to court 10 times or 100 times over individual cases, and that is expensive, inconvenient and unfair,” Žilvinskas said.

He also accused the ministry of pursuing a discriminatory approach by appealing rulings that could otherwise have become final without further litigation.

Under previous Justice Ministry leadership, he said, some court decisions were allowed to become final without being challenged. The current approach, he argued, forces some couples to endure lengthy legal proceedings while others have been able to secure recognition more easily.

The ministry insists that its appeals do not amount to rejecting the obligation to comply with court rulings. It says it is seeking clarification from higher courts on whether the decisions were made in accordance with the law.

Žilvinskas rejects the argument that registration cannot proceed without new legislation.

“This is simply an attempt to deny the very status of a family,” he said, arguing that court rulings recognising partnerships and ordering their registration should be implemented together.

“You cannot have a situation where something simply hangs in the air but is not registered. That will not solve any problems; it will only create even bigger ones. Families do not disappear because of this.”

He described the ministry’s efforts to challenge the rulings as “an attempt to stop the coning of spring”, adding that social and legal change would continue regardless of whether the authorities welcomed it.

Enforcement through bailiffs

With the ministry refusing to register partnerships even when court decisions have become final, some couples have turned to bailiffs in an effort to force compliance.

Žilvinskas said bailiffs were seeking enforcement in cases where rulings had not been appealed and had entered into force, but the partnerships remained unregistered.

Fines have already been imposed in at least one case for failure to comply with a court decision, he said. For one couple, a court ordered the authorities to pay a fine of 10 euros per day, with the possibility of higher penalties if the authorities continue to refuse compliance.

The Vilnius couple plans to pursue the same route.

Their lawyer said a bailiff could first approach the ministry to seek implementation of the ruling. If the ministry maintains that it lacks the technical means to register the partnership, the bailiff could then ask the lower court to impose a fine on the institution.

Žilvinskas expects daily penalties could eventually increase if the state continues to resist implementation.

He also warned that officials could ultimately face personal financial consequences if they obstruct enforcement, although any such penalties would depend on further legal proceedings.