Hong Kong’s top court said the government needs to establish laws recognizing same-sex partnerships, representing one of the biggest victories yet for LGBTQ activists in the financial hub.

The lack of such rules puts the government in violation of the city’s Bill of Rights, the Court of Final Appeal said in a ruling on Tuesday. But the court rejected the notion that failing to recognize same sex-marriage violated the city’s mini-constitution, which enshrines the right to equality.

“There is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage in Hong Kong,” the judges wrote in their ruling. But “it does not follow that there cannot be same-sex marriage in Hong Kong.”

The case marks the first time the city’s highest court has directly addressed the issue of same-sex marriage, and was brought by jailed pro-democracy activist Jimmy Sham. The appeal was his final chance to have his New York-registered marriage recognized in the former British colony.

Read more: Asia-Wide Fight for Same-Sex Marriage Faces Hong Kong Test

Businesses in the city have increasingly shown support for LGBTQ rights. More than 100 employers, including Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd., as well as multinationals like Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and McKinsey & Co. supported a call for recognition of same-sex relationships by Equal Love Hong Kong, a coalition of business and community organizations. Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News, is also a supporter.

Hong Kong doesn’t permit same-sex marriage but recognizes the overseas unions of couples in specific circumstances, including for foreigners seeking spousal visas. Those rights have been won in piecemeal legal victories over the years.

By calling for broader recognition of same-sex partnerships on Tuesday, the court ruling was sending “a positive move” to the LGBTQ community in Hong Kong, said Yiu-tung Suen, associate professor of the gender studies program at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

“Now there should at least be an alternative framework for legal recognition of same-sex relationships,” he said, adding that much will now ride on how the government follows up on the decision.

“There is still a lot of uncertainty about how that alternative framework will be established and whether it’s going to be a very narrow interpretation of what rights of same-sex couples are to be protected,” he said.

(Updates with details throughout.)