CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 26 January 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 11326/24 D.S. and R.Š. against Lithuania lodged on 7 April 2024 communicated on 7 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the impossibility to register in Lithuania the applicants as a same-sex couple, either through marriage, civil partnership or any other form. The applicants, two male Lithuanian citizens, submit that they have lived together for many years in Kaunas as a same-sex couple. On 17   May 2022 the applicants requested the Vilnius Civil Registry Office to register their same-sex civil partnership. On 19   May 2022 the authorities refused the request holding that civil partnerships at that time were not available under Lithuanian law. The applicants appealed to a court. On 21   April 2023 the Vilnius City District Court dismissed their appeal, having referred the Court’s case-law and to the principle of separation of powers. In the absence of any legislation on partnerships, there was no legal act on the basis of which the court could grant the applicants’ request. The court had no powers to create new legal norms. The applicants lodged an appeal with the Vilnius Regional Court. They argued, among other, that the lower court had disregarded the principle of dynamic interpretation of the Convention, set out in the Court’s case-law, in connection with the States’ positive obligation to recognise same-sex families. On 12   October 2023 the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, reiterating the principle of separation of powers and stating that it fell within the competence of the Seimas , as the legislator, to regulate relationships between same-sex couples. Thus far, such legal regulation in Lithuania did not exist. The applicants appealed to the Supreme Court which, on 14   December 2023, refused to examine their appeal on points of law, as raising no important legal issues. Referring to Article   8 of the Convention, the applicants note that they had not applied for same-sex marriage, but for their civil partnership to be recognised. Nevertheless, the Lithuanian legal system did not provide them with even a minimum legal recognition as a family. They submit that they were in a trap: the Seimas fails to perform its duties and legislate, whereas the courts refuse to solve the case and refer the applicants back to the legislator. The applicants also consider that the domestic courts misinterpreted the Court’s case-law and disregarded Lithuania’s obligations under international law. The applicants also complain that the non-recognition of their same-sex partnership amounts to discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation in breach of Article   14, in conjunction with Article   8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, in view of the Contracting Parties’ positive obligations under Article 8, should the applicants be afforded the possibility to have their relationship recognised and protected by law (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§   152-125, 17 January 2023; Buhuceanu and Others v. Romania , nos. 20081/19 and 20 others, §§ 72-84, 23 May 2023; Przybyszewska and Others v. Poland , nos.   11454/17 and 9 others, §§   97-124, 12   December 2023)?   2. In what specific ways are the applicants disadvantaged by the lack of any legal recognition of their relationship?   3. Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the ground of their sexual orientation, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   8 of the Convention, in respect of their inability to enter into any type of civil union recognising their relationship in Lithuania (see Maymulakhin and Markiv v.   Ukraine , no.   75135/14, §§   60-81, 1   June 2023)?