Freedom of Religion in Estonia and Sanctions Against Russia
By a decision dated 20 June 2025 and published on 7 July 2025, the European Court of Human Rights gave notice to the Estonian Government of an application submitted by the Estonian Orthodox Christian Church (EEELC) and the Pühtitsa Monastery on 29 November 2024. The applicants alleged a violation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of religion) as a result of a political declaration adopted by the Estonian Parliament (Riigikogu) on 6 May 2024, regarding the Moscow Patriarchate as an institution that supports the Russian Federation’s military aggression.
In this declaration, the Estonian Parliament strongly condemned the armed attack carried out by the Russian Government and the unlawful annexation of the territories seized during the aggression. It noted that the Patriarch Kirill of Moscow had publicly supported the act of aggression by the “terrorist” regime of the Russian Federation and that the leaders of the Moscow Patriarchate, including Patriarch Kirill, used the ideology of the “Russian World” as a tool to promote the war. The Parliament emphasized that Estonia, as a democratic State, respects freedom of religion, but expressed outrage at the abuse and distortion of religion and Orthodox religion by the Moscow Patriarchate and the ruling Russian regime. It warned that, given the actions of the Moscow Patriarchate to date, there is a risk of influencing people in a “pseudo-religious” context.
On this basis, the Parliament considered “the actions of the Moscow Patriarchate as an institution of justifying and supporting the aggression of the Russian Federation” to be unacceptable and therefore found it necessary to declare the Moscow Patriarchate an institution that sponsors the military aggression of the Russian Federation. The Parliament clarified that this declaration concerned “the Moscow Patriarchate as an institution and a governing body, not the people who follow Orthodox traditions”. It stressed that “Orthodox associations and congregations should also themselves assess the threat to public order and to their members that arises from the hostile influencing activities and take the necessary steps to cut their ties with the Moscow Patriarchate”
In response to a specific request from the applicants, the Constitutional Committee of the Parliament clarified on 29 July 2024, that the terms “Moscow Patriarchate” and “Moscow Patriarchate as an institution and governing body” (Moskva patriarhaat kui institutsioon ja juhtorgan), used in the declaration, referred to all entities mentioned in the Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Challenging the Riigikogu’s declaration, as specified by the Constitutional Committee, the applicants filed a complaint with the Estonian Administrative Court, seeking to eliminate the unlawful consequences caused by the declaration. The applicants claimed it labeled them as supporters of military aggression, damaging their reputation and, above all, forcing them to sever all institutional ties with their Church under threat of severe future sanctions.
However, the Tallinn Administrative Court dismissed the complaint, finding that it had no jurisdiction to assess the legality of a non-binding political declaration issued by the Parliament.
The decision was later upheld by both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Estonia.
After a preliminary examination of the case file, the European Court of Human Rights found the applicants’ complaints to be worthy of further review and swiftly initiated the written procedure stage. The case was considered potentially “high impact” as it raises important questions regarding the interpretation and application of the Convention.
In particular, the Court invited the parties to respond to the following substantive questions raised by the applicants:
“Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of religion, within the meaning of Article 9 § 1 of the Convention in the context of the Riigikogu’s political statement (see Tonchev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 56862/15, §§ 52-53, 13 December 2022; Leela Förderkreis e.V. and Others v. Germany, no. 58911/00, § 84, 6 November 2008; and Centre of Societies for Krishna Consciousness in Russia and Frolov v. Russia, no. 37477/11, § 38, 23 November 2021)?”
“If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 9 § 2 (see Tonchev and Others, cited above, §§ 60-63 and 65; Centre of Societies for Krishna Consciousness in Russia and Frolov, cited above, §§ 39-43; compare Leela Förderkreis e.V. and Others, cited above, § 86-101; see also, mutatis mutandis, Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, no. 45701/99, § 125, ECHR 2001-XII)?”
Given the nature of the issues raised in the application, which involve the core of religious freedom and arise in the broader context of how European states may be permitted to respond to the unlawful actions of the Russian Federation, it is possible that the Chamber may decide to relinquish jurisdiction in favor of the Grand Chamber under Article 30 of the Convention.
Before the European Court, the Estonian Orthodox Christian Church (EEELC) and the Pühtitsa Monastery are represented by lawyers Avv. Giulia Borgna and Avv. Prof. Andrea Saccucci from the law firm S&P, along with Avv. Artur Knyazev di Boutique Legal and Avv. Steven-Hristo Evestus di Sirel & Partners.
Image: Kaiti Lillipuu, Kuremäe kloostri hooned õhust lääne külg, CC BY-SA 3.0 ee
