Konstitucinis Teismas (Constitutional Court)

This case considers conformity of a Constitutional provision declaring that the State recognizes marriages registered in church with the Matrimonial and Family Code, which states that only civil marriages have legal effect. A widow was refused inheritance from her deceased spouse because their marriage was not contracted in a civil office before the passage of the Constitution. The Court affirmed that Constitutional provisions could not be applied retroactively, and thus only after 1992 when the legislation came into force can a church marriage be recognized by the State.

A Belarusian citizen and a Lithuanian registered their same-sex marriage in Denmark. In the same year, the Belarusian citizen applied for a Residency Permit on grounds of Family Reunification in Lithuania. However, it was denied by the Migration Department because neither same-sex marriage nor same-sex partnership is legal in Lithuania. The District Court affirmed the Migration Department’s decision; however, upon appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court decided to refer the case to the Constitutional Court.

This case considers conformity of constitutional provisions mandating that the State shall ensure, foster, and protect fatherhood, motherhood, and childhood, with the Children’s Maintenance Fund’s requirement that the applicant and the child must permanently reside in Lithuania to receive benefits. The petitioner argued that if the applicant and the child would lose their state-guaranteed support upon leaving Lithuania, it would violate the right to freedom of movement and the State’s duty to prioritize child interests.

Amongst other things, this case sets out that the constitutional concept of family is not only derived from the institution of marriage. According to the Court, a family formed on the basis of “continuous emotional affection, mutual understanding, responsibility, respect, co-parenting, and the like” is also protected by the Constitution. The significance of such family definition for same-sex partners was proven years later by the Constitutional Court case No. 16/2016.

In this case, a member of the Parliament was accused of sexually harassing women who applied to become his secretary. The Constitutional Court held that sexual harassment is a gross violation of the Constitution and the breaking of the oath of a Parliament member.