On 20 February 2024, a Russian transgender woman who had been granted refugee status in Estonia applied for family reunification with her same-sex partner, who was also a Russian national. The applicant and the partner had been in a factual cohabiting relationship but were neither married nor in a registered partnership, as LGBTIQ persons cannot marry or register their partnership in Russia. On 16 May 2024, the Police and Border Guard Board (PBGB) rejected the application, holding that the partner could not be considered a family member of a recognised refugee under Sections 7(2) and 7(5) of the Act on Granting International Protection to Aliens (AGIPA). On 21 May 2024, the applicant challenged that decision before the Tallinn Administrative Court which on 1 November 2024 dismissed the appeal, finding that it was not unconstitutional for an unregistered partner to fall outside the definition of family member under the AGIPA and noting that the applicant and the partner could have formalised their relationship in a country other than their country of origin. The applicant appealed to the Tallinn Court of Appeal, which upheld the appeal on 17 December 2025. The Court of Appeal declared Section 7(2) of the AGIPA unconstitutional and disapplied it to the extent that it excluded from the definition of a refugee's family member a de facto partner who had lived in an actual cohabiting relationship with the refugee before the refugee's arrival in Estonia, where marriage or registration of the partnership had been legally impossible in the refugee's country of origin for reasons beyond the partners' control. The court therefore annulled the PBGB decision and initiated constitutional review proceedings before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court first noted that, under Section 7(2)(1) and (1¹) of the AGIPA, a refugee's family members include the refugee's spouse and registered partner. Under Section 7(5), the family must already have existed in the country of origin, and the marriage must have been concluded or the partnership registered before the protected person's arrival in Estonia. A refugee's family member may apply for a residence permit under Section 46 only if they fall within the statutory definition of a family member of a person granted international protection. The court noted that, under Article 4(3) of the Family Reunification Directive, Member States may allow family reunification for an unmarried partner when a duly attested stable relationship exists. In the present case, there was no dispute that the applicant and the partner had such a relationship, and the PBGB had not found that the partner posed any threat to public order, security, or public health.

The court also referred to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law, according to which a stable de facto couple relationship may constitute “family life” under Article 8 of the ECHR, including when the relationship concerns same-sex partners. It further observed that, since gender-neutral registered partnerships have been permitted in Estonia since 1 January 2016 and gender-neutral marriage since 1 January 2024, Estonian law recognises both different-sex and same-sex relationships as capable of constituting family life. The court specified that the fundamental right to family life also applies to foreign nationals and stateless persons staying in Estonia under Section 9(1) of the Constitution, as well as to their family members. It therefore held that excluding the applicant's de facto permanent partner from the definition of family member, despite their legal inability to formalise the relationship in the country of origin, prevented the family from living together in Estonia and interfered with the applicant's fundamental right to family life.

The court then assessed whether the interference with the right to family life could be justified. It accepted that immigration control, including the prevention of threats to national security and public order, constitutes a legitimate aim under both the Constitution and the ECHR. Referring to the case law of the Supreme Court, it noted that restrictions on family life in the immigration context may be justified by the state's constitutional duty to protect internal peace and preserve the Estonian nation. The court found that the contested restriction was suitable for achieving those aims, but not necessary, because existing provisions of the AGIPA already allowed the authorities to refuse, extend, or revoke a residence permit where the person concerned posed a threat to public order or national security. Accordingly, the state could prevent potentially dangerous persons from entering Estonia as a refugee's partner through less restrictive, case-by-case assessment measures.

Moreover, the court rejected the arguments advanced by the Parliament and the Minister of the Interior that the requirement of marriage or registered partnership serves to prevent abuse of family reunification rules and enhances administrative efficiency by relying on formal documentary evidence rather than individual assertions. It held that the fact that case-by-case assessment may be less efficient than a general exclusionary rule does not render the contested restriction necessary within the meaning of Section 11 of the Constitution. The court observed that the mere existence of a marriage or partnership certificate does not exclude the possibility that the relationship is fictitious or that the document itself may be fraudulent. Accordingly, the authorities cannot rely solely on formal documentation but must, in any event, assess the genuineness of the relationship. Where additional verification is required for applicants who were legally unable to marry or register their partnership in the country of origin, the resulting administrative burden is mitigated by the fact that the burden of proving the existence of a stable relationship rests with the applicant. It therefore concluded that a complete prohibition, without exceptions, on recognising a refugee's de facto cohabiting partner as a family member was not necessary.

The court clarified that the requirement of marriage or registered partnership under the AGIPA is not generally disproportionate. However, it becomes unconstitutional where it is legally impossible for the refugee and the partner to satisfy that requirement. Although EU law does not require Member States to recognise a cohabiting partner as a family member, recital 8 of the Family Reunification Directive supports more favourable family reunification conditions for refugees than for other foreign nationals, given the circumstances that forced them to flee their country and prevented them from leading normal family life there. The court added that broader access to family reunification is also supported by recital 2 of the Family Reunification Directive, which refers to international law and Article 8 of the ECHR. Balancing the serious interference with the refugee's fundamental right to family life against public order and security risks that could be addressed under other provisions, the court concluded that the contested AGIPA rule was not proportionate in the strict sense.

In conclusion, the court found that Section 7(2) of the AGIPA, read together with Sections 7(5) and 46, disproportionately restricted the applicant's fundamental right to family life under Sections 26, 27(1), and 11 of the Constitution. Hence, it declared Section 7(2) unconstitutional and invalid.