Women and Justice: Keywords

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. The Constitutional Court reiterated their 2011 decision that a family is formed on the basis of “continuous emotional affection, mutual understanding, responsibility, respect, co-parenting, and the like” rather than solely by the institution of marriage. Therefore, the Court concluded that the State must not discriminate based on gender and/or sexual orientation in granting Residence Permits to foreign nationals reuniting with their spouses in Lithuania (see case No. 21/2008). English translation available here.

Danijoje tos pačios lyties asmenų santuoką įregistravo Baltarusijos pilietis ir lietuvis. Tais pačiais metais šis sutuoktinis iš Baltarusijos kreipėsi dėl leidimo gyventi Lietuvos Respublikoje šeimos susijungimo pagrindu. Tačiau, Migracijos departamentas prašymą atmetė, nes Lietuvoje nėra įteisintos nei tos pačios lyties asmenų santuoka, nei tos pačios lyties asmenų partnerystė. Apygardos teismas patvirtino Migracijos departamento sprendimą, tačiau Vyriausiasis administracinis teismas nusprendė perduoti bylą Konstituciniam Teismui, kuris pakartojo savo 2011 metų sprendimą, kad šeima kuriama remiantis „nuolatine emocine meile, tarpusavio supratimu, atsakomybe, pagarba, bendru auklėjimu ir panašiais dalykais“, o ne vien santuokos institucija. Todėl Teismas padarė išvadą, kad valstybė negali diskriminuoti dėl lyties ir (ar) seksualinės orientacijos, atsisakydama suteikti leidimą gyventi Lietuvoje užsienio piliečiams, kurie siekia šeimos susijungimo su savo sutuoktiniais.

Three lawfully and permanently settled residents of the UK challenged the Government's refusal to permit their husbands to join or remain with them on the basis of the 1980 immigration rules in force at the time. The rules applied stricter conditions for the granting of permission for husbands to join their wives than vice versa. These conditions did not apply to the wives of male permanent residents. The Court found that Article 8 encompassed the right to establish one's home in the State of one's lawful residence, and that being forced to either move abroad or be separated from one's spouse was inconsistent with this principle. On this basis the applicants claimed that, as a result of unjustified differences of treatment in securing the right to respect for their family life, based on sex, race and, in the case of Mrs. Balkandali, birth, they had been victims of a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8. The applicants claimed there was no objective and reasonable justification for the difference in treatment, rather the Government's claims ignored the modern role of women and the fact that men may be self-employed and create rather than seek jobs, as in the case of Mr. Balkandali.