Konstitucinė jurisprudencija žmogaus teisių kryžkelėje ir vertybiniai Konstitucinio Teismo pasirinkimai
| Author | Affiliation |
|---|---|
| Date |
|---|
2025 |
Vertybinės konstitucinės koncepcijos paprastai sukelia daugiau ginčų ir diskusijų dėl turinio sampratos ir esmės nei grynai teisinės konstrukcijos. Šeimos definicija, būdama ne tik teisinė, bet ir moralinė ar sociologinė kategorija, yra geriausias to pavyzdys. Klausimus, susijusius su šeimos samprata, sudėtimi ir, galiausiai, teise kurti šeimą Konstitucinis Teismas sprendė bent dviejose plačiai aptartose 2025 metų bylose. Jas išanalizavus, galima daryti išvadą, jog Konstitucinis Teismas savo jurisprudencijoje ir toliau siekia išlaikyti konstitucinių vertybių pusiausvyrą ir užtikrinti asmens teisių apsaugą net ir politiškai ar visuomeniškai jautriomis temomis. Vis dėlto kai kurie Konstitucinio Teismo sprendimai galėtų būti drąsesni tiek argumentacijos apimtimi, tiek doktrininiu aiškumu, ypač tais atvejais, kai sprendžiami tiesiogiai su asmens autonomija, orumu ir kintančiomis socialinėmis realijomis susiję klausimai.
Value-laden constitutional concepts tend to generate far more controversy and debate as to their meaning and substance than purely legal constructions. The definition of the family, which functions not only as a legal but also as a moral and sociological category, is a paradigmatic example of this tension. Questions concerning the understanding of the family, its composition and, ultimately, the right to found a family were addressed by the Constitutional Court in at least two widely discussed cases decided in 2025. An analysis of these judgments suggests that the Court has continued, in its jurisprudence, to pursue a careful balancing of constitutional values while seeking to ensure the protection of individual rights even in politically and socially sensitive contexts. Nevertheless, some of the Court’s decisions might have benefited from greater boldness, both in the breadth of their reasoning and in doctrinal clarity, particularly where issues directly implicating personal autonomy, human dignity and evolving social realities were at stake. Once the Constitutional Court has resolved the issue of legal protection for same-sex partnerships in the ruling of 17 April 2025, its further regulation in ordinary legislation can no longer be treated as a matter of ideological or value-based political choice dependent on the programmatic positions of particular political parties. Nor should it become a source of societal polarisation, since any attempt to deny or disregard what the Constitutional Court has determined would amount to a failure to respect the supremacy of the Constitution. Accordingly, any parliament that were to refrain from adopting legislation regulating the legal recognition of partnership would be perceived not as merely “failing to address” the partnership issue, which, as noted, has already been resolved, but as failing to comply with the constitutional imperative to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and to implement the rulings of the Constitutional Court. The right to found a family is one of the fundamental constitutional rights. Accordingly, the State should not impose unjustified restrictions on the use of means made available by scientific and medical progress for persons who seek to establish a family and have children, even in situations where no medical contraindications are present. Such restrictions would risk unduly interfering with personal autonomy, reproductive self-determination and the free development of one’s private and family life, and would therefore require particularly weighty and constitutionally convincing justification.