Council of State on same-sex couples: Constitutional marriage and adoption – “No harm to church traditions”

The ruling 392/2026 of the Plenary of the Council of State, published in May 2025, deemed constitutional the law concerning the civil union and adoption of children by same-sex couples.

The Plenary of the highest administrative court ruled that civil marriage between individuals of the same sex does not affect the right of different-sex individuals to enter into marriage, whether civil or religious, or to form a family, and that no discrimination arises against children to be adopted by married same-sex couples compared to those raised by a heterosexual couple.

Specifically, in its ruling 392/2026, the Plenary majority decided to reject the appeal filed by two associations and one non-profit company against the Minister of Interior’s decision concerning the adaptation of marital and birth registry records to the provisions of this law.

On constitutional issues, the Plenary majority ruled the following:

I. Regarding the Right of Same-Sex Couples to Enter into Civil Marriage

The institutions of marriage and family are not static and immutable over time, but are subject to evolution and redefinition.

The constitutional protection of these institutions does not prevent the legislator from making changes to the rules governing them, provided these changes are within the framework of Article 21 para. 1 of the Constitution, interpreted in conjunction with other constitutional and higher-ranking legal provisions and according to the spirit of evolving social conditions. With the disputed provisions of Law 5089/2024, the circle of persons who may, if they wish, publicly commit to a lifelong, initially, cohabitation with mutual dedication and fidelity according to the law, thereby obtaining the special recognition and protection reserved for married citizens, is expanded. This does not alter the rules governing marriage or undermine its core elements.

The extension of the right to civil marriage to same-sex couples, which is a contract under civil law and a purely state institution, applies to all citizens, regardless of religion or beliefs, and does not restrict or affect the right of different-sex individuals to marry or form a family according to traditional beliefs. It also does not harm the traditions of the Orthodox Christian Church concerning marriage and family creation, which remain a matter for the free compliance of Orthodox Christian citizens.

Furthermore, the reference to family in Article 21 para. 1 of the Constitution as fundamental to the nation’s preservation and advancement does not imply that only heterosexual marriage and biological parenthood are constitutionally protected family institutions. Adoption and raising children occur in other forms of family life, not only that formed by heterosexual marriage, and constitutional protection of family, motherhood, and childhood applies to all forms of family life, including those in modern society.

Thus, the provision of Law 5089/2024 does not contradict the constitutional purpose of marriage and family nor Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which has been interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights as neither imposing nor prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Lastly, the historical contribution of the Orthodox Christian teaching to the moral views of the Greek people does not negate the evolution of these views, especially in modern times, under the influence of various factors. In any case, the consideration of existing social and moral views when creating legal provisions on social ethics belongs to the discretion of the legislator, whose judgment cannot be replaced by the administrative judge overseeing limits.

II. Regarding the Right of Same-Sex Couples to Adopt Children

The recognition of the right for same-sex married couples to jointly adopt a child, and for one spouse to adopt the biological or adopted child of the other, is a direct consequence of recognizing the right of same-sex marriage as per Article 3 of Law 5089/2024.

According to the law, the adoption procedure involves several guarantees aiming to determine and protect the best interests of the child, including a two-stage investigation by appropriate social services and a judicial hearing.

Thus, the recognition of the adoption right by same-sex married couples, under the same conditions and procedures that already apply to heterosexual married couples, does not violate the constitutional protection of childhood and the best interests of the child, which are to be determined by the competent authorities in each adoption case. Discrimination against children adopted by same-sex couples is not supported.

Furthermore, it is not constitutionally required for adoption to mimic the biological relationship between a child and two heterosexual parents, as adoption by one individual, married or unmarried, has long been permitted.

III. Conclusion

The Plenary concluded that the provisions in question do not conflict with the Constitution. They align with the constitutional principles of respecting and protecting human dignity, free development of personality, and equality before the law, as well as with the principles of the ECHR, international treaties, and EU law. They reflect the evolution of social and moral views on same-sex relationships and the acceptance of same-sex family life, a trend that has been adopted by the majority of advanced democratic countries in Europe and the Western world.

The legislator’s choice does not exceed the limits set by higher legal norms and is not subject to further review by the administrative judge.

Minority Opinion

The provisions of Article 3 of Law 5089/2024, which modify Article 1350 of the Civil Code, granting the possibility of marriage between persons of the same sex, are problematic considering the constitutional, historical, cultural, and legal meaning of “marriage” in Greece, which is traditionally understood as a union between a man and a woman. Moreover, the legal protection for same-sex couples through civil union agreements already existed, and no obligation under international treaties required the introduction of this regulation.

Additionally, decisions regarding adoption should solely consider the child’s best interest, and it is unclear whether the long-term psychological, intellectual, and social impacts of being raised in a same-sex family have been thoroughly studied.

Therefore, in this opinion, the recognition of adoption rights within same-sex unions is not consistent with the constitutional provisions protecting the family and childhood.