Religious Freedom under Threat in Estonia: Urgent Action Needed
- 1 day ago
- 37 min read
Geneva, 16 June 2026. Justice pour Tous Internationale (JPTi) publishes its legal review and expresses serious concern following the 8 June 2026 judgment of the Supreme Court of Estonia (Riigikohus), sitting en banc, in Case No. 5-25-49, which upheld the 2025 amendments to the Churches and Congregations Act.
The full text of JPTi’s legal review, titled “Analysis of Non-Compliance with Estonia’s International Human Rights Obligations”, can be downloaded here as a PDF and is also reproduced below, after this press release, in HTML format.
JPTi considers that the judgment does not bring the amended legal framework into compliance with Estonia’s binding obligations under international and European human rights law. The upheld framework raises serious concerns under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which protect freedom of religion or belief, including the collective autonomy of religious communities.
“The Riigikohus judgment does not bring the KiKoS amendments into compliance with Estonia’s international human rights obligations. Even as judicially narrowed, the amendments remain incompatible with Article 9 ECHR and Article 18 ICCPR because they permit security-based and alignment-based interference with collective religious autonomy, legal personality, canonical continuity, and religious leadership without the legality, legitimate aim, necessity, proportionality, non-discrimination, and procedural safeguards required by international law,” said Sharof Azizov, President and Director of Justice pour Tous Internationale.
The amendments create a framework capable of coercive interference with religious legal personality, canonical continuity, clergy governance, management-board membership, property, parish life, and access to places of worship. They also risk pressuring religious communities to sever or alter canonical, hierarchical, administrative, or spiritual ties in order to preserve legal existence.
JPTi is especially concerned that the immediate and foreseeable burden falls on the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church and the Pühtitsa Dormition Convent. The risks include de-registration, compulsory dissolution, exclusion of clergy or management-board members, and coercive pressure to amend internal religious governance. The case also raises broader concerns for any religious community whose central, canonical, administrative, hierarchical, or spiritual authority is located abroad.
The Riigikohus majority relied on interpretive narrowing of the amendments. In JPTi’s view, however, that narrowing does not cure the core defects. The framework remains insufficiently foreseeable, gives excessive discretion to executive and security authorities, and allows national-security reasoning to enter a field where Article 9 ECHR and Article 18 ICCPR impose closed limitation clauses. It also fails to require concrete, serious, and individualised unlawful conduct by the domestic religious association itself.
“Freedom of religion or belief is not limited to the private act of worship. It includes the right of religious communities to exist, organise themselves, preserve their clergy, maintain canonical continuity, and conduct their religious life according to their own ecclesiastical rules. A State cannot protect doctrine in theory while placing the institutional life of a Church under security-based control,” Mr Azizov added.
JPTi also recalls that the matter cannot be separated from prior interference with the leadership and institutional continuity of the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church, including the effective expulsion of Metropolitan Evgenii through the non-extension of his residence permit. The promulgation or enforcement of the KiKoS amendments does not relieve Estonia of its obligation to remedy previous violations of international human rights law.
JPTi therefore calls on Estonian authorities to refrain from any enforcement action that would dissolve, de-register, restructure, or coerce religious communities in violation of international human rights standards. Any measure affecting religious associations must comply strictly with legality, legitimate aim, necessity, proportionality, non-discrimination, equality before the law, equality of arms, and effective remedy.
JPTi further calls on UN Special Procedures, USCIRF, States engaged in Estonia’s UPR52 review, Human Rights Council delegations, and the Chancellor of Justice of Estonia to monitor the post-judgment enforcement phase closely. They should seek urgent assurances that the amendments will not be applied in a manner that undermines freedom of religion or belief.
Particular attention should be given to the role of the United Kingdom, which raised the need for Estonia to ensure that national-security measures remain consistent with human rights obligations, including freedom of religion or belief, freedom of association, and the rule of law, in the context of Estonia’s UPR52 review. JPTi calls on the United Kingdom and other UN Member States to continue that engagement and to insist that national security cannot be used to impair the forum internum, collective religious autonomy, or the protected institutional life of religious communities.
JPTi also calls for mobilisation of the international community ahead of, and during, the 63rd session of the Human Rights Council, when Estonia’s UPR52 outcome is expected to be adopted. States should use that process to request clear commitments from Estonia that the KiKoS amendments will not be enforced through de-registration, compulsory dissolution, clergy exclusion, coercive restructuring, or pressure to sever canonical ties in violation of international human rights law.
The effective and safe return of Metropolitan Evgenii should be treated as a priority by UN Member States, USCIRF, and relevant international mechanisms. His exclusion affects not only his individual rights, but also the episcopal continuity, pastoral life, and collective religious autonomy of the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church.
USCIRF should enhance its monitoring of Estonia in the post-judgment period and treat any enforcement action against the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church, the Pühtitsa Dormition Convent, or related religious associations as a matter requiring urgent review. JPTi further calls on USCIRF to monitor whether Estonia takes effective remedial steps concerning Metropolitan Evgenii’s return and whether the KiKoS framework is used in practice to impose alignment-based regulation of religious life.
END
LEGAL REVIEW
The Riigikohus en banc Judgment in Case No. 5-25-49, 8 June 2026
Analysis of Non-Compliance with Estonia’s International Human Rights Obligations
Prepared by: Sharof Azizov, President and Director, Justice pour Tous Internationale (JPTi)
Date: 16 June 2026
Nature of document: Independent legal analysis of the Riigikohus en banc judgment in Case No. 5-25-49, assessed in light of Estonia’s binding international and European human rights obligations, including the standards placed before the Court in the JPTi Amicus Curiae Brief prepared by Emeritus Professor Douwe Korff and submitted on behalf of Justice pour Tous Internationale (JPTi) on 8 March 2026, notwithstanding its non-inclusion in the official case file, and cross-referenced with the full unofficial English translation of the judgment, including the joint dissenting opinion.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On 8 June 2026, the Supreme Court of Estonia, sitting en banc, dismissed the application of the President of the Republic and thereby confirmed the constitutionality of the 2025 amendments to the Churches and Congregations Act (Kirikute ja koguduste seadus, KiKoS). The President had refused promulgation on the basis that the amendments disproportionately restricted freedom of religion and freedom of association, in particular by prohibiting religious associations from maintaining certain links with foreign religious authorities deemed to pose a threat to Estonia’s security, constitutional order, or public order.
The judgment was delivered by a 17-judge formation of the Riigikohus. The 11-judge majority upheld the amendments. Six justices, Villu Kõve, Oliver Kask, Kai Kullerkupp, Saale Laos, Vahur-Peeter Liin, and Juhan Sarv, issued a joint dissenting opinion. The majority relied on constitutional interpretation to narrow several undefined statutory concepts. It construed the prohibited “connection” as limited to administrative-organisational links and economic dependence, excluded confessional and doctrinal connection from the scope of the contested norms, and required the relevant threat to be actual and case-specific rather than abstract.
This legal review finds that the judgment does not bring the KiKoS amendments into compliance with Estonia’s binding obligations under international and European human rights law. The interpretive narrowing adopted by the 11-judge majority does not cure the incompatibility of the upheld regime with Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 14 ECHR read together with Article 9, Articles 2(1), 2(2), 2(3), 14, 22, 26 and 27 ICCPR, Articles 1, 6 and 13 ECHR, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR where property and assets are affected.
The central legal conclusion is that the Riigikohus judgment fails to give effect to the closed limitation clauses of Article 9(2) ECHR and Article 18(3) ICCPR; fails to apply the ECHR and ICCPR legality requirements to the statutory text itself; and permits security-based and alignment-based interference with collective religious autonomy, legal personality, canonical continuity, and religious leadership without the legality, legitimate aim, necessity, proportionality, equality before the law, non-discrimination, equality of arms, and effective-remedy safeguards required by international law.
The judgment also leaves in force a legislative framework capable of disproportionate and discriminatory application not only against the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church (ECOC) and the Pühtitsa Dormition Convent, but against any religious denomination or community whose central, administrative, hierarchical, canonical, or spiritual authority is located abroad. This includes, in principle, churches and religious communities with transnational ecclesiastical structures, such as the Catholic Church in its canonical relationship with the Holy See and the Vatican. The immediate and foreseeable burden falls on ECOC and the Pühtitsa Dormition Convent, including through the risk of de-registration, compulsory dissolution, exclusion of clergy or management-board members, and coercive pressure to sever canonical or hierarchical ties.
The judgment further fails to address the remedial dimension of prior measures already taken against the Church’s leadership, including the effective expulsion of Metropolitan Evgenii through the non-extension of his residence permit. The promulgation or enforcement of the KiKoS amendments does not relieve Estonia of its obligation to remedy previous violations of international human rights law.
The purpose of this review is twofold. First, it identifies the binding international and European human rights standards that Estonia was required to apply and explains why those standards were not adequately applied by the 11-judge majority. Secondly, it provides a basis for immediate legal, institutional, and diplomatic action to prevent coercive enforcement of the KiKoS amendments and to seek remedies for prior interference with the religious autonomy, leadership continuity, and institutional life of the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church.
Principal Legal Findings of Non-Compliance
This review identifies the following principal findings of non-compliance with Estonia’s international and European human rights obligations. They are framed as distinct legal issues in order to avoid duplication.
1. Failure to apply treaty supremacy as the controlling standard
The judgment does not give full effect to § 123(2) of the Estonian Constitution, under which ratified international treaties prevail over conflicting domestic legislation. The Court did not apply Article 9 ECHR and Article 18 ICCPR as controlling limitation frameworks. Instead, it upheld the KiKoS amendments through a domestic constitutional construction of public order that incorporates national security and constitutional order.
2. Impermissible reliance on national security in the field of freedom of religion or belief
National security is not a permissible ground for restricting the manifestation of religion or belief under Article 9(2) ECHR or Article 18(3) ICCPR. The judgment acknowledges the Article 9 limitation structure, but permits national security to re-enter the analysis through domestic concepts of public order and constitutional order. That method expands closed international limitation clauses through domestic reclassification.
3. Failure to satisfy the “prescribed by law” and quality-of-law requirements
The KiKoS amendments remain insufficiently clear and foreseeable. Key terms, including “support”, “economic connection”, “threat”, and “another document underlying the activity”, do not provide religious communities with a reliable basis for knowing what conduct, canonical relationships, documents, economic arrangements, or foreign ecclesiastical links may expose them to warning procedures, de-registration, compulsory dissolution, clergy exclusion, or coercive restructuring.
4. Deferral of human rights protection to future enforcement
The majority leaves essential safeguards to future administrative and judicial proceedings. Under Article 9 ECHR and Article 18 ICCPR, the statute itself must provide foreseeability, safeguards against arbitrary application, and effective protection before coercive measures are triggered. Later case-by-case review cannot cure a legislative framework that already places religious communities under pressure to amend statutes, alter governance, or sever canonical ties.
5. Absence of a mandatory prior notice and administrative procedure
The judgment relies on the expectation that the Ministry of the Interior will organise administrative proceedings before seeking compulsory dissolution. However, the dissenting justices noted that the Act itself does not clearly impose such an obligation or require prior notification that a foreign religious authority has become “dangerous” within the meaning of the statute. This omission undermines legal certainty, effective remedy, equality of arms, and practical protection against irreversible interference.
6. Failure to protect collective religious autonomy and State neutrality
The judgment treats administrative-organisational and economic links as separable from confessional or doctrinal links. That distinction is inadequate where, in Orthodox ecclesiology and other transnational religious traditions, canonical hierarchy, religious leadership, ecclesiastical obedience, and internal governance may themselves form part of religious identity and collective manifestation. A State cannot avoid Article 9 ECHR and Article 18 ICCPR by labelling a protected religious structure as administrative.
7. State-imposed transfer of religious decision-making authority
The judgment records the Government’s position that severing a foreign spiritual hierarchy and transferring decision-making competence to another authority may be a moderate interference. Under Article 9 ECHR and Article 18 ICCPR, this is not a neutral administrative adjustment. It concerns the internal religious governance of the community itself and cannot be imposed as the price of legal survival except under the strictest international conditions.
8. Coercive interference with canonical allegiance and religious identity
A law that places a religious community under threat of de-registration, compulsory dissolution, loss of legal personality, clergy exclusion, or property consequences unless it alters or severs canonical or hierarchical ties creates coercive pressure. It may affect the protected core of religious identity, particularly where a community must choose between preserving its canonical identity and preserving its legal existence.
9. Failure to require concrete, serious, and individualised unlawful conduct by the domestic religious association
The judgment permits severe consequences for a domestic religious association based on its connection with a foreign religious authority, without requiring concrete, serious, and individualised unlawful conduct attributable to the domestic association itself. This amounts to collective attribution and alignment-based regulation, not conduct-based and evidence-based assessment.
10. Incorrect necessity and proportionality analysis
The majority treats the amendments as necessary because they are broader and more preventive than existing criminal-law, immigration-law, or individualised measures. Under Article 9 ECHR and Article 18 ICCPR, less intrusive conduct-based measures must be preferred unless the State demonstrates that they are insufficient to address a concrete and immediate public-order or public-safety need. The judgment does not require such demonstration and accepts speculative suitability and State efficiency as substitutes for strict necessity.
11. Improper minimisation of the consequences of loss of legal personality
The framework permits de-registration and compulsory dissolution, yet the judgment does not adequately account for the practical consequences of losing legal personality. For a religious community, legal personality is essential to owning or renting property, maintaining bank accounts, concluding contracts, employing clergy and staff, administering parishes, protecting monastery life, accessing courts, and conducting public religious services. The possibility of informal continuation without legal personality is not an adequate substitute for protected collective religious life.
12. Failure to ensure equality before the law, equal protection, non-discrimination, and minority rights
The judgment does not adequately address Article 2(1), Article 26, and Article 27 ICCPR, or Article 1 ECHR and Article 14 ECHR read with Article 9. Article 26 ICCPR protects not only against discrimination, but also equality before the law and equal protection of the law. The KiKoS framework creates a risk of unequal legal exposure for religious communities with foreign ecclesiastical centres and a foreseeable discriminatory burden on ECOC, the Pühtitsa Dormition Convent, their clergy, their faithful, and associated religious, linguistic, and cultural minority communities.
13. Failure to provide effective procedural safeguards against security assessments and classified evidence
Formal access to courts, appeals, remedial time limits, and possible later constitutional review are insufficient where the decisive basis for enforcement may be KAPO-linked security assessments or classified material. Articles 2(2), 2(3), 14 and 18 ICCPR, and Articles 1, 6, 9 and 13 ECHR require meaningful access to the substance of the case, equality of arms, adversarial testing of decisive evidence, strict judicial scrutiny of executive security claims, and an effective remedy capable of preventing or reversing unlawful interference.
14. Failure to scrutinise clergy and management-board disqualification
The amendments permit clergy and management-board disqualification on the basis of broad criminality language and low-threshold security determinations, including visa or residence-permit decisions based on whether a person poses or may pose a national-security threat. These provisions interfere directly with the right of religious communities to choose their religious leaders, clergy, teachers, and internal representatives.
15. Improper reliance on the abuse-of-rights doctrine
The judgment’s reference to Article 17 ECHR does not cure the incompatibility. Article 17 is an exceptional abuse-of-rights clause. It cannot serve as an abstract substitute for the Article 9(2) analysis or justify a general legislative framework that subjects legal personality, canonical affiliation, clergy governance, and religious continuity to security-based classification of a foreign religious authority.
16. Failure to remedy prior interference with religious leadership
The judgment does not address the remedial dimension of prior measures affecting the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church, including the effective expulsion of Metropolitan Evgenii through the non-extension of his residence permit. That measure affected not only his individual status, but also episcopal continuity, pastoral life, collective religious autonomy, and the rights of the faithful to remain connected to their canonical shepherd.
17. Domestic confirmation of statutory defects through the joint dissenting opinion
The joint dissenting opinion provides authoritative domestic confirmation that the statutory ambiguity was too serious to be cured by constitutional interpretation. The dissent recognised that practical consequences were insufficiently assessed, that religious associations may be made responsible for activities of foreign persons outside their control, and that the addressees of the Act must constantly assess documents, contracts, economic arrangements, and institutional connections to avoid compulsory dissolution.
SOURCE REFERENCES
This legal review is cross-referenced with the following judicial materials, JPTi advocacy records, United Nations documents, and Universal Periodic Review materials.
A. Judicial and Case Materials
1. Supreme Court of Estonia, Riigikohus, en banc judgment in Case No. 5-25-49/36, 8 June 2026: official Riigikohus judgment record, Case No. 5-25-49/36, 8 June 2026; see also the official Riigikohus English press release, “The Supreme Court did not declare the Churches and Congregations Act unconstitutional”, 8 June 2026.
2. Full unofficial English translation of the Riigikohus judgment, including the joint dissenting opinion: on file with Justice pour Tous Internationale (JPTi).
B. JPTi Advocacy and Submissions
3. JPTi Amicus Curiae Brief submitted to the Riigikohus, 8 March 2026: JPTi press release, “The Supreme Court of Estonia Declines to Include JPTi’s Amicus Curiae Submission in the Official Case File”, 1 April 2026, updated 2 April 2026. This page records the submission of the amicus curiae memorandum on 8 March 2026, its preparation by Emeritus Professor Douwe Korff, the Court’s confirmation of receipt, and the subsequent refusal to include the submission in the official case file.
4. JPTi preventive international advocacy and USCIRF submission, 17 February 2026: JPTi press release, “Estonia: JPTi Commends Presidential Constitutional Safeguards and Confirms Preventive International Advocacy”, 23 February 2026. This page records that JPTi transmitted a formal submission to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom on 17 February 2026, advocating preventive consideration of Estonia for Special Watch List review, and includes a download link to the USCIRF submission.
5. JPTi initial complaint to UN Special Procedures concerning religious freedom in Estonia, 14 May 2025: JPTi page, “Violations of Religious Freedom in Estonia”, 14 May 2025, updated 24 May 2025. This page records JPTi’s comprehensive complaint to UN Special Procedures concerning the Estonian Orthodox Christian Church and Metropolitan Evgenii.
6. JPTi supplementary submission to UN Special Procedures, 26 May 2025: JPTi page, “Estonian Court Endorses Religious Discrimination Against Orthodox Christian Minority”, 26 May 2025. This page records JPTi’s supplementary submission following the Tallinn Administrative Court ruling of 15 May 2025 concerning withdrawal of State funding.
7. JPTi second supplementary complaint to UN Special Procedures, 16 June 2025: JPTi page, “JPTi Urges UN Action Against Estonian Draft Law Threatening Religious Freedom”, 16 June 2025. This page records JPTi’s second supplementary complaint concerning Draft Law No. 570 UA and the risk of dissolution, clergy disqualification, and State-enforced restructuring of ecclesiastical governance.
8. JPTi third supplementary communication to UN Special Procedures, 19 June 2025: JPTi page, “JPTi Calls for Urgent Action on Estonia’s Religious Freedom Legislation”, 19 June 2025. This page records JPTi’s third supplementary communication following the adoption of the Churches and Congregations Amendment Act by the Riigikogu on 18 June 2025.
9. JPTi UPR52 advocacy concerning Estonia, 5 May 2026: JPTi page, “JPTi Engagement on Estonia’s UPR: Side Event and Monitoring of the State Review”, 5 May 2026. This page records JPTi’s advocacy during Estonia’s fourth-cycle Universal Periodic Review at the 52nd session of the UPR Working Group, including the side event and monitoring of Estonia’s review.
C. United Nations Special Procedures and OHCHR Materials
10. UN Special Procedures communication to Estonia, AL EST 2/2025, 6 August 2025: official OHCHR Special Procedures communication, AL EST 2/2025. This communication raised concerns regarding the Churches and Congregations Act amendments and their compatibility with, among other provisions, Articles 18, 19, 21, 22, 26, and 27 ICCPR.
11. Government of Estonia response to UN Special Procedures communication AL EST 2/2025: official OHCHR database file, Government response to AL EST 2/2025. This document responds to the joint communication of 6 August 2025 and addresses the Churches and Congregations Act amendments and related administrative court proceedings.
12. OHCHR public statement by UN experts, 15 December 2025: OHCHR press release, “UN experts concerned by escalating legislative and administrative measures affecting the Estonian Orthodox Christian Church”, 15 December 2025. This statement warned that the measures appeared to disproportionately affect a single religious community and risked stigmatising Estonia’s largest Christian denomination and a major institution for both ethnic Estonians and Estonia’s Russian-speaking community.
13. JPTi response to the OHCHR public statement, 15 December 2025: JPTi page, “United Nations Experts Raise Concerns on Estonia: JPTi Welcomes the Statement and Publishes Briefing”, 15 December 2025. This page records JPTi’s response to the UN experts’ public statement and links the statement to JPTi’s broader legal advocacy.
D. Universal Periodic Review Materials, UPR52 and HRC63
14. UPR 52nd Session, Estonia Review, May 2026: the following materials are relevant to Estonia’s fourth-cycle Universal Periodic Review.
Review of Estonia, 5 May 2026: UN Web TV webcast.
Adoption of the Working Group report, 15 May 2026: UN Web TV webcast.
Official UPR Meetings Portal page for Estonia: UPR Meetings Portal, Estonia, 52nd session, containing draft report materials and the chronological list of recommendations.
OHCHR Media Advisory: “Estonia’s human rights record to be examined by Universal Periodic Review”.
UPR Info summary of recommendations made to Estonia: 52nd UPR Working Group, key highlights.
OHCHR stakeholders’ submissions information page for Estonia, UPR 52nd session: stakeholder submissions received for Estonia’s fourth-cycle review, including the contribution of Justice pour Tous Internationale (JPTi).
15. Human Rights Council consideration of Estonia’s UPR52 outcome: the final UPR outcome document, expected under symbol A/HRC/63/7, can be accessed once officially available at https://docs.un.org/A/HRC/63/7. As of 16 June 2026, this document was not yet available.
DETAILED ANALYSIS
1. Applicable International and European Legal Framework
The principal binding framework is Article 9 ECHR, which protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the right to manifest religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, alone or in community with others and in public or private. Any interference with the manifestation of religion must be prescribed by law, pursue one of the legitimate aims exhaustively listed in Article 9(2), and be necessary in a democratic society. The requirement that a restriction be prescribed by law includes accessibility, foreseeability, precision, and safeguards against arbitrary or discriminatory application.
Article 18 ICCPR imposes an equivalent and, in certain respects, stricter framework. It protects the right to have, adopt, and retain a religion or belief without coercion and protects the manifestation of religion or belief individually and in community with others. No limitation is permitted on the forum internum. Restrictions on manifestation are permitted only where prescribed by law and necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. National security is not included in Article 18(3).
The collective dimension of religious freedom is central. Article 9 ECHR and Article 18 ICCPR protect the ability of religious communities to exist, organise themselves, maintain internal governance, select and preserve religious leadership, define their ecclesiastical structure, and conduct religious life according to their own rules. Legal personality is part of the practical exercise of collective religious freedom because it enables property ownership, contracts, employment of clergy and staff, bank accounts, legal standing, public worship, and international religious contacts.
These protections are especially relevant for religious denominations whose central, administrative, hierarchical, canonical, or spiritual authority is located abroad. International human rights law does not permit the State to treat transnational religious affiliation as suspect in itself. The State may regulate concrete unlawful conduct, but it may not convert religious affiliation, canonical hierarchy, or spiritual allegiance into a basis for coercive restructuring unless the strict requirements of legality, legitimate aim, necessity, proportionality, equality before the law, non-discrimination, and effective remedy are satisfied.
Religious autonomy must also be read in light of freedom of association under Article 11 ECHR and Article 22 ICCPR. However, those association-law provisions cannot be used to weaken the stricter protection of freedom of religion or belief. Where the interference concerns religious organisation, canonical hierarchy, clergy governance, sacramental continuity, or collective manifestation of religion, Article 9 ECHR and Article 18 ICCPR remain controlling.
Article 14 ECHR read with Article 9, Article 1 ECHR, and Articles 2(1), 26 and 27 ICCPR are relevant to equality and minority-rights analysis. A formally general law may still violate equality before the law, equal protection, non-discrimination, or minority rights where its legislative history, context, foreseeable effect, or practical burden identifies a particular religious, linguistic, or ethnic minority community as the effective target.
Articles 6 and 13 ECHR, and Articles 2(2), 2(3) and 14 ICCPR, are relevant to procedure. Formal access to a court is not sufficient where decisive evidence is based on security assessments or classified material that the affected religious association cannot effectively contest. Equality of arms, adversarial process, access to the substance of the case, meaningful judicial scrutiny, and an effective remedy are required before any de-registration, compulsory dissolution, clergy exclusion, or coercive restructuring may be imposed.
Article 8 ECHR is relevant where measures affect private, family, social, pastoral, spiritual, institutional, or communal ties, particularly in the case of religious leaders. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR may be engaged where enforcement affects property, leases, bank accounts, contracts, parish assets, monastery property, or other material interests connected with legal personality. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights may also be relevant where the matter falls within the scope of EU law.
The OSCE/ODIHR 2019 Freedom of Religion or Belief and Security Policy Guidance and Venice Commission standards are relevant to the assessment of vague laws, State neutrality, religious autonomy, registration, de-registration, legal personality, security-based restrictions, and safeguards against arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.
2. Treaty Supremacy and Failure to Apply the Correct Controlling Standard
The JPTi Amicus Curiae Brief recalled that § 123(2) of the Estonian Constitution gives priority to ratified international treaties over conflicting domestic legislation. This principle required the Riigikohus to determine whether the KiKoS amendments complied with Estonia’s obligations under the ECHR and the ICCPR, not merely whether they could be preserved through domestic constitutional interpretation.
The judgment refers to Article 9 ECHR and ECtHR case-law, but it does not apply Article 9 ECHR and Article 18 ICCPR as controlling limitation frameworks. Instead, it validates the KiKoS amendments through a domestic public-order construction that incorporates national security and constitutional order. Domestic constitutional concepts cannot enlarge the permissible grounds for restricting freedom of religion or belief under Article 9 ECHR or Article 18 ICCPR.
The defect is methodological and substantive. Once treaty supremacy is applied, the Court had to assess the amendments against the closed limitation clauses, strict quality-of-law requirements, collective religious autonomy guarantees, non-discrimination obligations, and procedural safeguards imposed by international human rights law. The 11-judge majority did not perform that controlling treaty-based assessment.
The same principle applies to prior measures affecting the leadership of the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church, including the effective expulsion of Metropolitan Evgenii through the non-extension of his residence permit. The promulgation or enforcement of the KiKoS amendments cannot retroactively validate measures that were incompatible with Estonia’s international obligations at the time they were taken.
3. Impermissible Reliance on National Security under Article 9 ECHR and Article 18 ICCPR
The central legitimate-aim defect is the reliance on national security. Article 9(2) ECHR permits restrictions only for public safety, public order, health or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others. Article 18(3) ICCPR permits restrictions only for public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. Neither provision includes national security.
The majority acknowledges that Article 9(2) ECHR does not list national security as a permissible ground for restricting freedom of religion, and that not all grounds available under Article 11(2) ECHR can be relied upon where freedom of religion is engaged. That acknowledgement should have led the Court to apply the narrower Article 9 framework. Instead, the judgment treats public order under domestic constitutional law as including national security and constitutional order.
That reasoning is incompatible with Article 9(2) ECHR and Article 18(3) ICCPR. Estonia cannot enlarge international limitation clauses by domestic reclassification. Public order and public safety require concrete, serious, and demonstrable risks connected to the conduct of the religious community itself. They do not permit restrictions based on abstract geopolitical alignment, foreign ecclesiastical affiliation, perceived ideological proximity, or the statements and conduct of a foreign religious authority.
The judgment’s approach also risks undermining religious neutrality. If the State may decide that a foreign religious authority is politically or security-sensitive and then pressure domestic religious communities to sever canonical ties, alter ecclesiastical governance, exclude clergy, or risk dissolution, the State assumes power over religious affiliation and internal religious organisation. That is precisely what Article 9 ECHR and Article 18 ICCPR are intended to prevent.
4. Failure to Satisfy the “Prescribed by Law” and “Quality of Law” Requirements
The KiKoS amendments do not satisfy the legality standard required under Article 9(2) ECHR and Article 18(3) ICCPR. The law must be sufficiently clear and foreseeable so that a religious association can determine in advance what conduct, documents, economic arrangements, foreign contacts, canonical references, or internal governance structures may expose it to warning procedures, de-registration, compulsory dissolution, clergy exclusion, or coerced statutory amendment.
The majority attempted to cure the statutory defects by interpretation. It held that the prohibited connection concerns administrative-organisational links and economic dependence; that confessional and doctrinal connection is excluded; that a threat must be actual and case-specific; and that old or isolated statements are insufficient unless they generate an actual threat in the circumstances of the case. Those limitations are important as judicial statements, but they do not make the statute itself sufficiently foreseeable.
The six dissenting justices applied the correct legality analysis. They concluded that the ambiguity in the contested provisions was too serious to be overcome by constitutional interpretation. They identified specific defects: the Act does not define economic connection as economic dependence; the majority’s interpretation of “support” does not follow clearly from the wording; the provision does not require the supported aggression or call for war to be connected with Estonia or capable of transfer to Estonia; and the phrase “may, among other things, exist” leaves room for broader application.
The legality defect is aggravated by the role of the Ministry of the Interior and KAPO-linked security assessments. If decisive conclusions are based on classified information that the affected religious community cannot effectively know, test, or rebut, the process cannot satisfy the quality-of-law requirement or the procedural guarantees of equality of arms, adversarial review, and effective remedy.
5. Deferral of Rights Protection and Absence of Mandatory Prior Procedure
The majority relies on future administrative and judicial review to uphold the amendments in abstract review. That reliance is insufficient. The statute itself must provide clear rules, safeguards, and procedures before religious communities are placed under pressure to amend statutes, alter governance, sever canonical ties, or risk dissolution.
A separate procedural defect is the absence of a clear mandatory prior administrative procedure. The dissenting justices noted that, although the Government stated that the Ministry of the Interior would first organise administrative proceedings, no such obligation clearly arises from the Act. The Act also does not clearly require prior notification to a religious association that the foreign person with whom it is connected has become “dangerous” within the meaning of the statute.
This omission is incompatible with legal certainty, effective remedy, equality of arms, and practical protection against irreversible interference. A religious community cannot be expected to remedy an alleged deficiency without clear notice of the factual basis, legal criteria, evidence relied upon, and the specific measure required. A six-month transitional or remedial period is meaningful only if the community knows what must be remedied and why.
6. Collective Religious Autonomy, State Neutrality, and Religious Decision-Making Authority
As a matter of international and European human rights law, the case falls squarely within Article 9 ECHR and Article 18 ICCPR. The beliefs, practices, ecclesiastical order, sacramental life, and canonical structure of the Orthodox Churches generally, and of the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church specifically, constitute religious beliefs and manifestations of religion. These provisions protect not only individual believers, but also collective religious life in community with others.
The majority treats the prohibited links as administrative-organisational or economic rather than confessional or doctrinal. That distinction does not resolve the human-rights issue. In Orthodox ecclesiology, canonical hierarchy, ecclesiastical obedience, religious leadership, parish discipline, sacramental continuity, and communion with a recognised ecclesiastical authority are not merely secular or administrative matters. They form part of the Church’s internal religious life and collective manifestation.
The same principle applies beyond the Orthodox context. A law that permits the State to restrict or penalise a religious community because its central, administrative, hierarchical, canonical, or spiritual authority is located abroad may affect any religious denomination with a transnational ecclesiastical structure, including the Catholic Church in its canonical relationship with the Holy See and the Vatican. The State may not treat foreign ecclesiastical affiliation as suspect in itself.
The judgment also fails to address the gravity of State-imposed transfer of religious decision-making authority. The Government’s position, recorded in the judgment, treated severance of a foreign spiritual hierarchy and conferral of decision-making competence on another authority as a moderate interference. Under Article 9 ECHR and Article 18 ICCPR, that is not a neutral administrative adjustment. It concerns the internal religious governance of the community itself.
The State may not determine which religious affiliations are acceptable, which canonical structures are legitimate, or which ecclesiastical relationships a religious community should maintain. Nor may it pressure a religious community to transfer allegiance to a different religious authority, reorganise its hierarchy, or accept State-approved religious governance as the price of legal survival.
7. Coercion, Forum Internum, and Canonical Allegiance
The majority distinguishes between the forum internum and the forum externum and concludes that only the external dimension of freedom of religion is affected. That conclusion is incomplete. The KiKoS framework does not merely regulate external administration. It creates coercive pressure on religious communities to alter or sever ecclesiastical relationships that form part of religious identity, canonical continuity, and collective self-understanding.
Article 18 ICCPR protects the right to have, adopt, and retain a religion or belief without coercion. No limitation is permitted on the forum internum. Article 9 ECHR likewise protects the internal dimension of religious conviction and prohibits State action that pressures individuals or communities to abandon or alter protected religious identity.
The relevant coercion operates through the collective structure of religious life. Where the State threatens loss of legal personality, de-registration, compulsory dissolution, property consequences, or clergy exclusion unless the community alters its canonical or hierarchical ties, the community is placed under pressure to choose between preserving religious identity and preserving legal existence. That choice is inherently coercive.
The removal of the words “confessional or doctrinal connection” from the legislative text does not eliminate this problem. If the remaining statutory terms allow authorities to treat canonical hierarchy, ecclesiastical obedience, spiritual allegiance, or institutional communion as administrative-organisational dependence, the interference remains directed at religious identity in substance.
8. Legal Personality, Registration, De-registration, and Compulsory Dissolution
The KiKoS regime interferes with Article 9 ECHR and Article 18 ICCPR because it regulates the conditions under which religious associations may retain legal personality, continue registration, preserve organisational and canonical links, and avoid de-registration or compulsory dissolution. Registration status is not a technical privilege. For a religious community, legal personality is the legal vehicle through which collective religious life is exercised in practice.
Without legal personality, a religious community may be unable to own or rent property, maintain bank accounts, conclude contracts, employ clergy and staff, administer parishes, protect monastery life, secure access to courts, maintain places of worship, receive donations, conduct public religious services, or maintain domestic and international religious contacts. De-registration and compulsory dissolution therefore directly affect the ability of the faithful to practise their religion in community with others.
The judgment recognises that compulsory dissolution may affect all persons belonging to the religious association and that loss of legal personality has serious legal effects. However, it does not adequately account for those consequences. The possibility that a community may continue informally, or as a non-legal-person form of association, is not an adequate substitute for legal personality where property, contracts, bank accounts, employment, judicial standing, and public religious life are affected.
The European human rights framework requires particularly weighty reasons where a religious community that has operated for years is deprived of registration or legal personality. Such reasons must be directed at the conduct of the domestic religious association itself. The State may regulate concrete unlawful conduct, but it may not use registration law to impose a general loyalty test based on ecclesiastical affiliation, canonical hierarchy, spiritual allegiance, or administrative dependence on a foreign religious centre.
9. Necessity and Proportionality
The majority’s necessity and proportionality analysis does not meet the requirements of Article 9 ECHR and Article 18 ICCPR. The Court treats the amendments as suitable because they may reduce the probability that a threat will materialise in Estonia. It treats them as necessary because existing criminal-law, immigration-law, and individualised measures address specific persons, while the contested regime permits preventive action against religious associations.
This reasoning reverses the strict necessity test. The question is not whether a broader preventive scheme is more useful from the State’s perspective. The question is whether the interference is necessary in a democratic society, corresponds to a pressing social need, pursues a legitimate aim recognised by Article 9(2) ECHR and Article 18(3) ICCPR, and remains proportionate.
Severe measures against a domestic religious association require concrete, serious, and individualised unlawful conduct attributable to that association itself. De-registration, compulsory dissolution, coerced amendment of statutes, severance of canonical ties, clergy exclusion, or disruption of legal personality cannot be justified merely by reference to statements, conduct, political positions, or security classifications of a foreign religious authority.
The judgment also uses an insufficient evidentiary threshold at the suitability stage. It accepts theoretical contribution to security objectives without requiring evidence that severing religious hierarchy, economic links, or organisational ties would prevent hostile influence, particularly where the alleged influence may occur through media, internet communications, or individual contacts independent of legal-personality status.
The President identified narrower alternatives, including treating threatening foreign positions as non-binding, relying on existing criminal-law provisions, applying immigration-law measures to specific individuals, and using targeted proceedings where concrete unlawful conduct exists. The majority rejected these alternatives primarily because they were less effective from the State’s preventive perspective. That is not the correct proportionality inquiry.
10. State Reclassification of Religious Activity as Non-Religious Influence
The judgment accepts the State’s distinction between protected religious activity and hostile influence activity allegedly conducted under the cover of religion. The State may regulate unlawful conduct, including incitement, violence, or other acts falling outside the protection of freedom of religion or belief. However, this distinction requires concrete and individualised proof.
The State may not reclassify ecclesiastical allegiance, canonical hierarchy, spiritual authority, or foreign religious affiliation as non-religious influence activity without evidence that the domestic religious association itself has engaged in unlawful conduct. Otherwise, the State assumes power to determine when religious organisation is genuinely religious and when it is merely a security-sensitive cover. That is incompatible with Article 9 ECHR, Article 18 ICCPR, and the principles of religious neutrality and impartiality.
11. Improper Reliance on Article 17 ECHR
The judgment’s reference to Article 17 ECHR does not cure the incompatibility. Article 17 is an exceptional abuse-of-rights clause. It cannot serve as an abstract substitute for the Article 9(2) analysis.
A religious association may not be deprived of Article 9 protection merely because the State alleges that hostile influence may occur under the cover of religion. Any reliance on Article 17 would require specific, concrete, and grave conduct attributable to the association itself. It cannot justify a general legislative framework that subjects legal personality, canonical affiliation, clergy governance, and religious continuity to security-based classification of a foreign religious authority.
12. Equality Before the Law, Non-Discrimination, and Minority Rights
The judgment does not adequately address equality before the law, equal protection, non-discrimination, and minority rights. The relevant framework includes Article 2(1), Article 26, and Article 27 ICCPR, as well as Article 1 ECHR and Article 14 ECHR read together with Article 9.
Article 26 ICCPR is broader than a simple prohibition of discrimination. It guarantees equality before the law, equal protection of the law, and equal and effective protection against discrimination. A law may violate these standards through its purpose, context, foreseeable effect, selective application, or practical burden, even if it is formally general in wording.
The 11-judge majority treated the KiKoS amendments as generally applicable and declined to examine the concrete situation of ECOC and the Pühtitsa Dormition Convent in abstract constitutional review. That approach is inadequate. Even in abstract review, the Court was required to assess the foreseeable discriminatory effects and unequal legal exposure created by the legislation, especially where the record showed that the amendments were, in substance and political context, directed at ECOC and the Pühtitsa Dormition Convent because of their links with the Russian Orthodox Church.
Article 27 ICCPR is also engaged. The KiKoS framework may affect the ability of persons belonging to religious, linguistic, and ethnic minorities to profess and practise their religion in community with others. This is especially serious where the practical burden falls on a religious community connected to Estonia’s Russian-speaking Orthodox faithful.
The broader structural risk must also be recognised. Religious communities with foreign ecclesiastical centres may be exposed to unequal legal vulnerability if the State treats foreign religious authority as a security concern. The State must explain why one form of transnational religious affiliation is treated as a threat while others are not, and it must do so on the basis of concrete, individualised, and contestable evidence.
13. Procedural Guarantees, Security Assessments, and Classified Evidence
The 11-judge majority relies on the formal existence of judicial review. It notes that compulsory dissolution is decided by a county court on application of the Minister of the Interior, that the court must set a time limit for remedying deficiencies where possible, that appeal is available, and that later constitutional review remains possible.
Formal access to a court is not the same as effective judicial protection. Where de-registration, compulsory dissolution, loss of legal personality, clergy exclusion, management-board disqualification, or property interference may be based on KAPO-linked assessments or classified material, the procedure must provide meaningful access to the case, equality of arms, adversarial review, strict scrutiny of executive claims, and an effective remedy.
Article 2(2) ICCPR requires Estonia to adopt laws and measures necessary to give effect to Covenant rights. Article 2(3) ICCPR requires an effective remedy. Article 14 ICCPR requires fair-hearing guarantees where rights and obligations are determined. The corresponding ECHR framework includes Articles 1, 6 and 13.
A religious community cannot effectively defend its legal personality, property, clergy, governance, or canonical continuity if it cannot know and contest the substance of the allegations against it. If classified material is relied upon, counterbalancing safeguards must preserve the essence of fair procedure and effective remedy.
14. Clergy and Management-Board Disqualification
The KiKoS amendments raise a distinct issue concerning clergy and management-board disqualification. The amendments prohibit a clergy member from serving where the person has an unexpired punishment for an intentional criminal offence, without any minimum seriousness threshold, and where the person has been refused a visa or residence permit, or had such status revoked, on grounds that the person poses or may pose a threat to national security. Comparable restrictions apply to management-board members.
The freedom to choose religious leaders, clergy, priests, teachers, monastic authorities, and internal representatives is an essential component of freedom of religion or belief. Article 18 ICCPR protects worship, practice, and teaching, including acts integral to the conduct by religious groups of their basic affairs. Article 9 ECHR likewise protects the autonomy of religious communities to organise internal religious life and maintain leadership without unjustified State interference.
The absence of a seriousness threshold for intentional offences is disproportionate. The national-security limb is even more problematic because Article 9(2) ECHR and Article 18(3) ICCPR do not permit national security as an autonomous ground for restricting religious manifestation. The formula “poses or may pose a threat” creates a low and preventive threshold incompatible with the intensity of interference where clergy or religious governance are affected.
The prior exclusion of Metropolitan Evgenii illustrates the danger of allowing security reasoning to determine access to religious leadership. A statutory regime that allows similar reasoning to determine clergy eligibility or management-board participation risks institutionalising interference with religious leadership and collective religious autonomy.
15. Metropolitan Evgenii and the Continuing Remedial Obligation
The judgment does not address the remedial dimension of prior interference with the leadership of the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church, including the effective expulsion of Metropolitan Evgenii through the non-extension of his residence permit. That measure affected not only his individual status, but also episcopal continuity, pastoral life, collective religious autonomy, and the rights of the faithful to remain connected to their canonical shepherd.
His effective expulsion was not preceded by a fully accessible, adversarial, and rights-compliant process establishing concrete and individualised unlawful conduct. Reliance on classified security information and ordinary immigration reasoning, including the assertion that he had not established sufficient family ties in Estonia, failed to assess the specific religious and pastoral reality of a monastic Metropolitan.
For the purposes of Articles 8 and 9 ECHR, and Article 18 ICCPR, the authorities were required to assess his long-standing private, pastoral, spiritual, institutional, and communal ties in Estonia, including his role as canonical shepherd and spiritual father of the Orthodox faithful under his care. The promulgation or enforcement of the KiKoS amendments does not relieve Estonia of its obligation to remedy prior violations, cease unlawful interference, prevent recurrence, and restore, as far as possible, the situation that would have existed had the violation not occurred.
16. Legal Significance of the Joint Dissenting Opinion
The joint dissenting opinion of Justices Villu Kõve, Oliver Kask, Kai Kullerkupp, Saale Laos, Vahur-Peeter Liin, and Juhan Sarv confirms, from within the Riigikohus itself, that the statutory defects were not adequately resolved by the 11-judge majority.
The dissenting justices concluded that the ambiguity of the contested provisions was too serious to be cured by constitutional interpretation. They expressly relied on ECtHR, OSCE/ODIHR, and Venice Commission standards requiring foreseeability and safeguards against arbitrary State interference. They also warned that vague statutory terms capable of arbitrary application must be avoided where the consequences for religious associations may be severe or existential.
The dissent is particularly important because it confirms that the legal problem is not hypothetical or external to Estonian law. Six justices of the Supreme Court recognised that the practical consequences of the Act had not been adequately assessed, that the Act may require religious associations to bear responsibility for activities or statements of foreign persons outside their control, and that religious associations may be required to constantly assess documents, contracts, financial arrangements, and institutional links to avoid compulsory dissolution.
Although the dissent does not develop a separate ICCPR analysis, its reasoning is consistent with Article 18 ICCPR, Article 22 ICCPR, Articles 26 and 27 ICCPR, and General Comment No. 22. Its legal significance lies in its domestic confirmation of defects in legality, foreseeability, proportionality, and protection against arbitrary application.
17. Consequences for Enforcement
The Riigikohus judgment removes the domestic constitutional obstacle to promulgation and enforcement of the KiKoS amendments, but it does not remove Estonia’s international responsibility. A domestic judgment confirming the constitutionality of legislation cannot extinguish obligations arising under the ECHR, the ICCPR, OSCE commitments, or other applicable international standards.
If the Ministry of the Interior initiates administrative steps against ECOC, the Pühtitsa Dormition Convent, or any related religious association after the transitional period, concrete violations may arise immediately. Such steps may include warning letters, demands to amend statutes, demands to sever canonical or hierarchical ties, exclusion of clergy or management-board members, de-registration, compulsory dissolution, property interference, and proceedings affecting leases, bank accounts, contracts, parish administration, monastery life, religious services, and access to judicial protection.
Any enforcement action should therefore be treated as a fresh and concrete trigger for international scrutiny. The fact that the Riigikohus upheld the amendments in abstract constitutional review does not preclude later findings of violation under the ECHR, the ICCPR, or other international standards. Preventive legal and diplomatic action is necessary before irreversible harm occurs.
CALLS FOR IMMEDIATE LEGAL, INSTITUTIONAL, AND DIPLOMATIC ACTION
Following the Riigikohus judgment, the matter has moved from abstract constitutional review into the enforcement and remedial phase. The immediate concern extends to possible application through administrative warnings, demands to amend statutes, coercive pressure to sever canonical or hierarchical ties, exclusion of clergy or management-board members, de-registration, compulsory dissolution, or other interference with legal personality, property, religious leadership, canonical continuity, and collective religious life.
The post-judgment situation must also be addressed in connection with prior measures already taken against the leadership and institutional continuity of ECOC, including the effective expulsion of Metropolitan Evgenii. The promulgation or enforcement of the KiKoS amendments does not relieve Estonia of its continuing obligation to remedy previous measures adopted in violation of international human rights law.
Call on UN Special Procedures
JPTi calls on the relevant UN Special Procedures mandate holders to review the legal consequences of the Riigikohus judgment and maintain active monitoring of Estonia in the post-judgment enforcement phase. The mandate holders should monitor any administrative proceedings, warning letters, demands to amend statutes, pressure to sever canonical or hierarchical ties, clergy or management-board exclusions, and any application for de-registration or compulsory dissolution.
The mandate holders should seek clarification from Estonia as to whether the Ministry of the Interior, KAPO, or any other authority intends to initiate enforcement steps against ECOC, the Pühtitsa Dormition Convent, or any related religious association. Such clarification should address the legal basis, evidentiary threshold, access to evidence, reliance on classified material, proportionality analysis, and remedies available before any coercive measure is taken.
They should also address the effective and safe return of Metropolitan Evgenii as part of the remedial dimension of the case.
Call on USCIRF
JPTi calls on the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom to update its review of Estonia in light of the Riigikohus judgment and to keep Estonia under close review for Special Watch List consideration. Particular attention should be given to the fact that the legal architecture upheld by the judgment permits security-based interference with legal personality, canonical continuity, clergy governance, and institutional autonomy.
USCIRF should treat the post-judgment enforcement phase as a preventive monitoring priority. Any warning procedure, demand to amend statutes, clergy exclusion, management-board exclusion, de-registration step, compulsory dissolution application, or pressure to sever canonical ties should be treated as a matter requiring urgent review.
Call on States Engaged During UPR52 and Delegations at the Human Rights Council
JPTi calls on States that engaged with Estonia during UPR52, especially those that made recommendations concerning freedom of religion or belief, freedom of association, national security and human rights, rule of law, access to justice, non-discrimination, equality before the law, hate speech and hate crime, and protection of ethnic, religious, and linguistic minorities, to follow up without delay.
Particular attention should be given to the United Kingdom, which recommended that Estonia ensure that measures adopted on national-security grounds remain consistent with human rights obligations, including freedom of religion or belief, freedom of association, and the rule of law. The United Kingdom and other UN Member States should continue that engagement during the next phase and insist that State security cannot be used to impair the forum internum, collective religious autonomy, or the protected institutional life of religious communities.
Ahead of, and during, the 63rd session of the Human Rights Council, when Estonia’s UPR52 outcome is expected to be adopted, States should request clear commitments from Estonia that the KiKoS amendments will not be enforced through de-registration, compulsory dissolution, clergy exclusion, coercive restructuring, or pressure to sever canonical ties in violation of international human rights law. The effective and safe return of Metropolitan Evgenii should be treated as a priority by UN Member States, USCIRF, and relevant international mechanisms.
Call on the Chancellor of Justice of Estonia
JPTi calls on the Chancellor of Justice of Estonia, in her dual capacity as constitutional guardian and National Human Rights Institution, to exercise active protection and monitoring functions in relation to the post-judgment enforcement of the KiKoS amendments. She should monitor all immediate administrative steps taken against ECOC and the Pühtitsa Dormition Convent, including any action by the Ministry of the Interior, KAPO, or other security authorities.
The Chancellor of Justice should issue a protective legal position stating that no enforcement action should proceed unless it fully complies with Article 9 ECHR, Article 18 ICCPR, Article 14 ECHR read with Article 9, Articles 2(1), 2(2), 2(3), 14, 22, 26 and 27 ICCPR, and Articles 1, 6 and 13 ECHR. She should also review the prior exclusion of Metropolitan Evgenii and assess whether the non-extension of his residence permit complied with legality, necessity, proportionality, equality before the law, equality of arms, effective remedy, religious autonomy, and non-discrimination.
Call on the Government of Estonia and the Ministry of the Interior
JPTi calls on the Government of Estonia and the Ministry of the Interior to refrain from initiating any enforcement action that would result in de-registration, compulsory dissolution, forced restructuring, coercive amendment of statutes, severance of canonical or hierarchical ties, clergy or management-board exclusion, or interference with the property, contracts, bank accounts, parishes, monastery life, or religious life of the affected community.
The authorities should interpret and apply the KiKoS amendments strictly in accordance with Estonia’s international obligations. No measure should be taken on the basis of national-security reasoning where the restriction falls within Article 9 ECHR or Article 18 ICCPR and where there is no concrete, serious, and immediate threat attributable to the domestic religious association itself.
Estonia should take immediate steps to restore the position of Metropolitan Evgenii and enable his effective and safe return. Domestic legislation cannot validate or extinguish State responsibility for prior measures that interfered with freedom of religion or belief, collective religious autonomy, access to religious leadership, legal certainty, equality before the law, non-discrimination, or effective remedy.
Call on ECOC and the Pühtitsa Dormition Convent
JPTi calls on ECOC and the Pühtitsa Dormition Convent to preserve a structured evidence record for possible domestic and international proceedings. This record should document lawful conduct, distancing from unlawful or aggressive statements, absence of domestic incitement or violence, the religious and canonical significance of ecclesiastical ties, and the practical consequences of any loss of legal personality.
The record should also document effects on property, bank accounts, contracts, employment, parish administration, clergy continuity, sacramental life, places of worship, and the functioning of the Pühtitsa Dormition Convent. It should separately record any reliance by authorities on undisclosed security material, any denial of access to evidence, and any pressure to alter canonical affiliation, internal governance, clergy status, or legal representation.
Call for Preparedness for Protective International Proceedings
JPTi calls on relevant legal representatives, religious authorities, and supporting human rights organisations to prepare in advance for urgent international action if enforcement begins or if Estonia fails to remedy prior violations. This preparation should include legal arguments under Article 9 ECHR, Article 18 ICCPR, Article 8 ECHR, Articles 2(1), 2(2), 2(3), 14, 22, 26 and 27 ICCPR, Articles 6 and 13 ECHR, Article 14 ECHR read with Article 9, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR where property is affected.
Such preparation is necessary to ensure immediate response if the Ministry of the Interior initiates formal enforcement, if authorities require amendment of statutes, if clergy or management-board members are excluded, if any application for compulsory dissolution or de-registration is filed, or if authorities refuse to take remedial steps enabling Metropolitan Evgenii’s return.
FINAL LEGAL CONCLUSION
The 11-judge majority of the Riigikohus upheld the KiKoS amendments through interpretive narrowing that does not cure their non-compliance with Estonia’s binding obligations under international and European human rights law. The judgment does not bring the amendments into conformity with Article 9 ECHR, Article 18 ICCPR, Article 14 ECHR read with Article 9, Articles 2(1), 2(2), 2(3), 14, 22, 26 and 27 ICCPR, Articles 1, 6 and 13 ECHR, or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR where property and assets are affected.
The judgment fails to apply treaty supremacy as a controlling standard; permits national-security reasoning in a field governed by closed religious-freedom limitation clauses; fails to require sufficient statutory foreseeability; defers essential safeguards to future enforcement; permits coercive interference with canonical identity and religious decision-making authority; and does not require concrete, serious, and individualised unlawful conduct by the domestic religious association itself.
It also fails to ensure equality before the law, equal protection, non-discrimination, minority-rights protection, and effective procedural safeguards where security assessments and classified material may be decisive. It does not remedy prior interference with the religious leadership and institutional continuity of the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church, including the effective expulsion of Metropolitan Evgenii.
The joint dissenting opinion confirms that the statutory defects were not merely hypothetical or external to Estonian law. Six justices of the Supreme Court recognised that the ambiguity of the contested provisions was too serious to be cured by constitutional interpretation, that practical consequences had not been adequately assessed, and that the Act may require religious communities to bear responsibility for foreign persons outside their control.
Accordingly, any enforcement of the KiKoS amendments against the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church, the Pühtitsa Dormition Convent, or any other religious community with foreign canonical, administrative, hierarchical, or spiritual ties must be treated as a fresh and concrete trigger for international scrutiny. In the absence of strict legality, legitimate aim, necessity, proportionality, individualised evidence, equality before the law, non-discrimination, religious neutrality, equality of arms, and effective remedy, such enforcement would engage Estonia’s international responsibility.
