Sinkevičius urges parliament to resolve partnership deadlock

Prime Minister Mindaugas Sinkevičius has criticised the failure to implement court rulings on partnership registration, saying parliament must resolve the legal gap, LRT reported, citing BNS.

“I do not like legal nihilism,” Sinkevičius said, referring to a 2025 Constitutional Court ruling and court decisions in similar cases. He said he understood Justice Minister Rita Tamašunienė’s argument that the current Civil Code does not allow partnerships to be registered, but said the issue must be addressed in parliament.

The Justice Ministry has been unable to overturn a court order requiring the state to register the partnership of two women from Vilnius. It says it will not implement the final ruling because there is no law setting out a registration procedure.

The standoff comes about a year and a half after the Constitutional Court opened the way for same-sex couples to have partnerships recognised through the courts. Courts have recognised partnerships, while the ministry says it cannot register them until parliament passes a law.

Sinkevičius said he would raise the issue in regular meetings with government leaders and called on parliament to amend the Civil Code. He said it was unacceptable for people to have to take the state to court to secure their rights.

In April 2025, the Constitutional Court ruled that parliament had violated the Constitution by failing for 24 years to pass a separate law, required under the Civil Code, to regulate partnerships between people living together without marrying. The court also said partnerships must include both same-sex and different-sex couples.

After Tamašunienė said she would not draft a partnership bill, a group of Social Democratic, Liberal and Conservative MPs registered a proposal last autumn to establish gender-neutral partnerships through the Civil Code. The proposal has not been placed on the parliamentary plenary agenda. Earlier efforts to regulate couples’ relationships, including a civil union bill and Civil Code amendments introducing the concept of a “close relationship”, were not adopted.