Yesterday, the VU Law Faculty hosted the scientific seminar “Constitutional Law Facing Contemporary Challenges: Comparative Insights From Lithuania and Poland.”
The seminar aimed to strengthen cooperation between Lithuanian and Polish constitutional law scholars, encourage academic discussion, and share insights on current challenges in constitutional law.
Participants included scholars from various universities in both countries.
At the opening of the international seminar, Prof. Agnieszka Bień-Kacała analyzed the changing concept of the family in Poland through public demonstrations and societal debates. The scholar explained that in the Polish Constitution, “family” is understood more broadly than “marriage,” although it is still often associated with motherhood and fatherhood. The professor noted that the first “Pride” parade in Poland was held back in 2001, but stronger public support for LGBTQ community rights only began to emerge from 2015 onward, when broader segments of society and even some politicians joined the marches. Nevertheless, the speaker emphasized that alongside growing public support, strong conservative counter-movement forces remain.
Later, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Dovilė Pūraitė-Andrikienė presented issues related to the constitutionality of the Istanbul Convention. She discussed the fact that Lithuania signed the Istanbul Convention in 2013 but has not ratified it to this day. On March 14, 2024, the Constitutional Court of Lithuania issued an opinion on the compatibility of certain provisions of the Istanbul Convention with the Constitution. The speaker presented the questions of the Istanbul Convention’s compatibility with the Constitution in the broader context of the cultural, political, and legal disagreements of Eastern and Central European states. The presentation addressed the doubts surrounding the Convention in these states, the constitutional courts’ rulings on its provisions, as well as the debates raised in Lithuania and the Constitutional Court’s perspective on them. The Court concluded that the Convention does not contain provisions incompatible with the Constitution. Similar to the constitutional courts of Latvia and Moldova, the Lithuanian Constitutional Court focused on the objectives of the Convention and determined that both the Convention—aimed at combating violence against women and domestic violence while promoting and ensuring de facto equality between women and men as a prerequisite for reducing violence against women—and the Constitution pursue the same universally significant goals.
Dr. Ilona Grądzka and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Agnė Juškevičiūtė-Vilienė, in a joint presentation, examined the institution of marriage in national law and European Union law—between state autonomy and common standards. The key questions raised by the scholars were: does EU citizenship affect the legal status of same-sex couples, and what consequences does EU law have for the legal systems of Poland and Lithuania? The presentation highlighted that under Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, every citizen of a Member State is also an EU citizen, and this citizenship grants the right to move and reside freely throughout the Union. According to Directive 2004/38/EC, these rights also apply to family members, including registered partners. In the Coman case, the Court of Justice of the European Union recognized that the term “spouse” also includes same-sex spouses if the marriage was lawfully concluded under the laws of another Member State. Therefore, Member States cannot refuse to grant residence rights to such a partner. In light of this, the Coman judgment raises a fundamental scholarly question—must an EU Member State recognize the right of same-sex family reunification when such regulation does not exist in its domestic law? Addressing this question, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Agnė Juškevičiūtė-Vilienė presented the doctrine established by the Constitutional Court of Lithuania in this field. According to the scholar, the Court indicated that EU membership obliges Lithuania to observe the principles of free movement and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, thereby ensuring non-discriminatory family reunification. The Constitutional Court emphasized that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity cannot be justified in a democratic state. Therefore, Lithuania must grant temporary residence permits to same-sex foreign partners, even if national law does not provide for marriage registration.
The Constitutional Court’s ruling of April 17, 2025, on the institution of cohabitation without marriage (partnership), which declared unconstitutional Article 28 of the Law on the Approval, Entry into Force, and Implementation of the Civil Code, and Article 3.229 of the Civil Code insofar as it allowed partnerships only between a man and a woman, was presented by Dr. Karolina Bubnytė-Širmenė. It was noted that while Lithuanian human rights activists and the LGBT+ community welcomed the ruling as historic, there were also critics. The presentation sought to answer the question of whether this ruling of the Constitutional Court can indeed be considered an example of judicial activism. After analyzing the Court’s legal reasoning, it was concluded that there were no signs of the Court exceeding its competence. On the contrary, by drawing on doctrinal principles formulated in earlier constitutional justice cases, the Court further developed the official constitutional doctrine, consistently continuing the interpretation of the Constitution as an anti-majoritarian act that protects the individual.
Dr. Katarzyna Szwed presented a comparative analysis of the constitutional protection of children’s rights in Poland and Lithuania. She stressed that Poland has a detailed constitutional framework and a broad network of institutions, while Lithuania relies on more general provisions supplemented by laws and centralized services. The speaker highlighted the “Lex Kamilek” reform in Poland and the challenges in Lithuania due to a lack of resources, emphasizing that both countries need to build a preventive system that ensures children’s dignity, voice, and safety.
The event was moderated by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Donatas Murauskas of the Department of Public Law at Vilnius University Faculty of Law, whose analytical commentary and deep knowledge of constitutional law brought particular academic value to the discussion.
