Anti-propaganda laws | -5/10 | No evidence of applicable anti-discrimination legislation: 0/10 | Anti-discrimination legislation covers one protected characteristic: 5/10 | Two grounds of discrimination: 7.5/10 | Three grounds of discrimination: 10/10
The Law on Education (2016) calls for measures to address cyberbullying, including on the basis of sexual orientation. Cases can be reported online.
The Law on Equal Opportunities (2013) prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation, but does not cover GIGESC grounds.
The Law on Protection of Minors Against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information (2002) contained contrasting provisions regarding LGBTQI issues. While Article 4(2)(12) explicitly prohibits the dissemination of materials that incite bullying or humiliation based on sexual orientation, Article 4(2)(16) (as amended in 2009) banned information that "expresses contempt for family values" or promotes concepts of marriage and family formation different from those established in the Constitution and Civil Code.
However, in a landmark ruling delivered in December 2024, the Lithuanian Constitutional Court (Ruling No. KT23-N4/2024) found Article 4(2)(16) of the Law on the Protection of Minors Against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information to be unconstitutional. This provision immediately ceased to be valid upon the ruling, requiring no additional legislative action to implement the change.
The Court's decision was significantly influenced by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case of Macatė v. Lithuania. The Court determined that this provision violated constitutional principles by creating legal uncertainty, improperly restricting minors' access to information, and failing to ensure objective information that reflects real social relationships. The Court emphasised that the constitutional concept of family extends beyond marriage-based relationships to include bonds founded on permanent emotional attachment, mutual understanding, responsibility, and shared child-rearing, regardless of gender. This ruling represents a significant legal shift, as the previous interpretation of Article 4(2)(16) had effectively deterred discussion of LGBTQI issues in educational settings and public discourse. The Court specifically noted that restricting information about different family models is incompatible with the constitutional obligation to ensure children's harmonious development based on respect for human rights, dignity, and democratic values of equality, pluralism, and tolerance. This position aligns with other ECtHR jurisprudence, particularly Bayev and Others v. Russia, where the court found no scientific evidence that exposure to information about homosexuality or sexual minorities negatively affects children.
The Constitutional Court's analysis was further supported by the Law on Fundamentals of Protection of the Rights of the Child (2017), which establishes children's right to freedom of expression, including access to information. This law emphasises that the state should encourage media to disseminate information that is socially and culturally beneficial to children, promotes their welfare, and fosters respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, principles that align with the Court's finding that diverse family representations contribute to children's development in a democratic society.
The 2017 Law on Equal Treatment obliges secondary and post-secondary education institutions to guarantee equal opportunity for all students regardless of sexual orientation.
While the legal effect of the Constitutional Court ruling is automatic, practical policy measures like inclusive education initiatives, however, remain necessary to address lingering societal impacts from the provision’s previous enforcement.
