Adoption by same-sex couples is constitutional, rules the Council of State: “Church traditions are not affected”

The Plenary Session of the Council of State gave the greenish airy for the designation of the close of a minor to beryllium adopted by joined same-sex couples, arsenic it was judged that this “does not interruption the law extortion of puerility and the paramount/best interests of the child,” portion besides ruling that matrimony betwixt persons of the aforesaid enactment is accordant with the Constitution and the European Convention connected Human Rights (ECHR).

Regarding matrimony of same-sex couples, the Council of State judges emphasized that “the rules and traditions of the Orthodox Christian Church regarding the solemnisation of matrimony and household instauration are not affected, the observance of which continues to beryllium connected the voluntary compliance of Orthodox Christian citizens.”

The Plenary Session ruled that the provisions of Law 5089/2024 are law and are successful enactment with the law principles of respect for and extortion of quality dignity, escaped improvement of personality, and equality earlier the law, arsenic good arsenic with the principles of the ECHR, different planetary conventions, and EU law, reflecting the “evolution, implicit the past decades, of some societal and motivation perceptions regarding same-sex relationships and the ineligible attraction of cohabitation and parenthood by same-sex couples successful the bulk of precocious antiauthoritarian countries successful Europe and, much generally, the Western world, toward eliminating societal exclusion and protecting backstage and household beingness without favoritism based connected intersexual orientation“.

The Right to Adopt Children

Specifically, regarding the close of same-sex couples to follow children, the Plenary Session of the Council of State, with Decision No. 392/2026 (President Michalis Pikramenos and rapporteur Councilor Anastasia-Maria Papadimitriou), by bulk ruled:

“The recognition, successful favour of joined same-sex couples, of the close to jointly follow a insignificant child, and the close to follow the lawful child, biologic oregon foster, of 1 spouse by the other, constitutes, according to the explanatory study of Law 5089/2024, a earthy effect of the recognition, nether Article 3 of Law 5089/2024, of the close to participate into matrimony betwixt persons of the aforesaid sex. According to the applicable provisions, the adoption process is governed by a acceptable of guarantees aimed astatine verifying and protecting the champion interests of the insignificant child, including (a) probe by the due societal service, successful 2 chiseled stages [initial suitability appraisal and re-evaluation anterior to submitting a petition for a circumstantial adoption] and (b) a proceeding earlier the competent court.

Given these conditions, the designation of the close of adoption of a insignificant by joined same-sex couples, nether the aforesaid conditions and process already established and successful unit for adoption by joined opposite-sex couples, does not interruption the law extortion of puerility and the paramount/best interests of the child, which is duly assessed and determined by the competent authorities (social services and, ultimately, the competent court) successful each circumstantial adoption request, without precluding adoption owed to the sex oregon intersexual predisposition of the prospective adoptive parents.

Procedural guarantees are besides provided, nether Article 11, paragraph 2 of Law 5089/2024, for adoptions already carried retired by same-sex couples abroad. Moreover, it is not required, and so constitutionally unnecessary, for adoption to replicate the biologic narration of a kid with 2 opposite-sex parents, truthful that the adopted kid is raised by a parent and father, since adoption by a azygous person, joined oregon unmarried, has agelong been permitted, and the continuously evolving societal world includes assorted household structures beyond the household with 2 opposite-sex parents.

Given these circumstances, determination is nary contented of unfair favoritism against children who volition beryllium adopted by joined same-sex couples—following the competent court’s determination that the child’s champion interests are served—compared to children raised by 2 opposite-sex parents, nor does it interruption the law rule of equality oregon the rule of protecting the champion interests of the child.”

Minority Opinion

The number of six Council of State judges expressed the pursuing views:

The provisions of Article 3 of Law 5089/2024, which amend Article 1350 of the Civil Code, to let the anticipation of a “marriage” betwixt persons of the aforesaid sex, taking into account:

(a) that nether the Constitution, the conception of matrimony successful Greece has a circumstantial historical, cultural, and ineligible meaning [“marriage” is understood arsenic matrimony betwixt opposite-sex partners],

(b) that already an equivalent extortion to marriage—and accordant with the requirements of the supra law provisions and the provisions of the ECHR and the International Covenant connected Civil and Political Rights—was provided for unchangeable same-sex cohabitations done the established civilian partnership, and truthful determination was nary work nether the supra planetary texts to enact the contested provision, and

(c) that, owed to its peculiar characteristics related to moral, physiological, and demographic parameters, matrimony protected nether Article 21, paragraph 1 of the Constitution (between opposite-sex partners) does not beryllium nether the aforesaid conditions arsenic the unchangeable and existent cohabitations of same-sex couples, and truthful a question arises regarding usurpation of the rule of equality done identical ineligible attraction of these 2 situations, contrary to Article 21, paragraph 1 and Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Constitution.

Furthermore, decisions regarding adoption indispensable beryllium made exclusively with the child’s champion interests successful mind. In this case, it does not look that the legislator considered circumstantial and well-founded studies, extended implicit time, showing the semipermanent interaction connected the intellectual, psychological, and societal improvement of children surviving successful a household of same-sex parents and, consequently, their harmless improvement successful this context. Therefore, the designation nether Article 12, paragraph 1, 2nd condemnation of Law 5089/2024 of the anticipation of adoption and, successful general, acquiring a associated kid wrong the model of same-sex unions nether Article 3 of the contested instrumentality is, according to the aforesaid opinion, not successful harmony with Articles 2(1), 5(1), 9(1), 21(1) of the Constitution, Article 8 of the ECHR, the UN Convention connected the Rights of the Child, and the Hague Convention connected intercountry adoptions.

Who Appealed to the Council of State

Finally, the determination rejected an annulment petition filed by 2 associations and a non-profit institution against a determination of the Minister of Interior, concerning the adaptation of the signaling of spouses’ and parents’ accusation connected matrimony and commencement certificates successful accordance with the provisions of this law.

The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the provisions of Law 5089/2024, which, for the archetypal time, found the anticipation of entering into a civilian matrimony betwixt same-sex couples and, arsenic a earthy consequence, the close of joined same-sex couples to follow a insignificant nether the rules applicable to joined opposite-sex couples.