The Plenary Session of the Council of State gave the green light for the recognition of the right of a minor to be adopted by married same-sex couples, as it was judged that this “does not violate the constitutional protection of childhood and the paramount/best interests of the child,” while also ruling that marriage between persons of the same sex is consistent with the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Regarding marriage of same-sex couples, the Council of State judges emphasized that “the rules and traditions of the Orthodox Christian Church regarding the celebration of marriage and family creation are not affected, the observance of which continues to depend on the voluntary compliance of Orthodox Christian citizens.”

The Plenary Session ruled that the provisions of Law 5089/2024 are constitutional and are in line with the constitutional principles of respect for and protection of human dignity, free development of personality, and equality before the law, as well as with the principles of the ECHR, other international conventions, and EU law, reflecting the “evolution, over the past decades, of both social and moral perceptions regarding same-sex relationships and the legal treatment of cohabitation and parenthood by same-sex couples in the majority of advanced democratic countries in Europe and, more generally, the Western world, toward eliminating social exclusion and protecting private and family life without discrimination based on sexual orientation“.

The Right to Adopt Children

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

“The recognition, in favor of married same-sex couples, of the right to jointly adopt a minor child, and the right to adopt the lawful child, biological or foster, of one spouse by the other, constitutes, according to the explanatory report of Law 5089/2024, a natural consequence of the recognition, under Article 3 of Law 5089/2024, of the right to enter into marriage between persons of the same sex. According to the applicable provisions, the adoption process is governed by a set of guarantees aimed at verifying and protecting the best interests of the minor child, including (a) investigation by the appropriate social service, in two distinct stages [initial suitability assessment and re-evaluation prior to submitting a request for a specific adoption] and (b) a hearing before the competent court.

Given these conditions, the recognition of the right of adoption of a minor by married same-sex couples, under the same conditions and procedure already established and in force for adoption by married opposite-sex couples, does not violate the constitutional protection of childhood 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) in each specific adoption request, without precluding adoption due to the gender or sexual orientation of the prospective adoptive parents.

Procedural guarantees are also provided, under Article 11, paragraph 2 of Law 5089/2024, for adoptions already carried out by same-sex couples abroad. Moreover, it is not required, and indeed constitutionally unnecessary, for adoption to replicate the biological relationship of a child with two opposite-sex parents, so that the adopted child is raised by a mother and father, since adoption by a single person, married or unmarried, has long been permitted, and the continuously evolving social reality includes various family structures beyond the family with two opposite-sex parents.

Given these circumstances, there is no issue of unfair discrimination against children who will be adopted by married same-sex couples—following the competent court’s determination that the child’s best interests are served—compared to children raised by two opposite-sex parents, nor does it violate the constitutional principle of equality or the principle of protecting the best interests of the child.”

Minority Opinion

The minority of six Council of State judges expressed the following views:

The provisions of Article 3 of Law 5089/2024, which amend Article 1350 of the Civil Code, to allow the possibility of a “marriage” between persons of the same sex, taking into account:

(a) that under the Constitution, the concept of marriage in Greece has a specific historical, cultural, and legal meaning [“marriage” is understood as marriage between opposite-sex partners],

(b) that already an equivalent protection to marriage—and consistent with the requirements of the above constitutional provisions and the provisions of the ECHR and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—was provided for stable same-sex cohabitations through the established civil partnership, and therefore there was no obligation under the above international texts to enact the contested provision, and

(c) that, due to its particular characteristics related to moral, physiological, and demographic parameters, marriage protected under Article 21, paragraph 1 of the Constitution (between opposite-sex partners) does not exist under the same conditions as the stable and actual cohabitations of same-sex couples, and therefore a question arises regarding violation of the principle of equality through identical legal treatment of these two situations, contrary to Article 21, paragraph 1 and Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Constitution.

Furthermore, decisions regarding adoption must be made exclusively with the child’s best interests in mind. In this case, it does not appear that the legislator considered specific and well-founded studies, extended over time, showing the long-term impact on the intellectual, psychological, and social development of children living in a family of same-sex parents and, consequently, their safe development in this context. Therefore, the recognition under Article 12, paragraph 1, second sentence of Law 5089/2024 of the possibility of adoption and, in general, acquiring a joint child within the framework of same-sex unions under Article 3 of the contested law is, according to the same opinion, not in harmony with Articles 2(1), 5(1), 9(1), 21(1) of the Constitution, Article 8 of the ECHR, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Hague Convention on intercountry adoptions.

Who Appealed to the Council of State

Finally, the decision rejected an annulment request filed by two associations and a non-profit company against a decision of the Minister of Interior, concerning the adaptation of the recording of spouses’ and parents’ information on marriage and birth certificates in accordance with the provisions of this law.

The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the provisions of Law 5089/2024, which, for the first time, establish the possibility of entering into a civil marriage between same-sex couples and, as a natural consequence, the right of married same-sex couples to adopt a minor under the rules applicable to married opposite-sex couples.