Published on 7 July 2025
THIRD SECTION
Applications nos. 37303/24 and 37448/24
PÜHTITSA JUMALAEMA UINUMISE STAVROPIGIAALNE NAISKLOOSTER
against Estonia
and MOSKVA PATRIARHAADI EESTI ÕIGEUSU KIRIK against Estonia
lodged on 29 November 2024 and 29 November 2024 respectively
communicated on 20 June 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
he applicants’ complaint concerns a political statement made by the Riigikogu (the Estonian Parliament) about Moscow Patriarchate.
The applicants are Pühtitsa Stavropegial Women’s Monastery of the Dormition of Our Lady (hereinafter “the Pühtitsa Monastery”) and the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. According to their statutes (põhikiri) the applicants belong to the canonical structure of the Russian Orthodox Church.
On 6 May 2024 the Riigikogu adopted a political statement declaring the Moscow Patriarchate an institution supporting Russia’s military aggression. In the statement the Riigikogu strongly condemned the war waged by the Russian Federation against Ukraine and the illegal annexation of the territories conquered during the aggression. It noted that Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and all Russia had expressed his public support to the act of aggression of the terrorist regime of the Russian Federation and that the leaders of the Moscow Patriarchate and Patriarch Kirill were using ideology of the “Russian world” as a tool to promote the war. The Riigikogu underlined that Estonia, as a democratic state, stood for freedom of religion, but expressed its indignation at the abuse and distortion of religion and Orthodox tradition by the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian regime in power. It noted that in the light of the actions of the Moscow Patriarchate thus far, there was a risk of people being influenced by such pseudo-religious context.
The further parts of the declaration read as follows:
“The Riigikogu considers unacceptable the actions of the Moscow Patriarchate as an institution of justifying and supporting the aggression of the Russian Federation. Therefore, the Riigikogu deems it necessary to declare the Moscow Patriarchate an institution sponsoring the military aggression of the Russian Federation.
...
The Riigikogu also emphasises that declaring the Moscow Patriarchate an institution sponsoring the military aggression of the Russian Federation concerns the Moscow Patriarchate as an institution and a governing body, not the people who follow Orthodox traditions. 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 the applicants’ query the Constitutional Committee of the Riigikogu explained on 29 July 2024 that the terms “Moscow Patriarchate” and “Moscow Patriarchate as an institution and a governing body” (Moskva patriarhaat kui institutsioon ja juhtorgan) used in the statement referred to the entities named in the statute of the Russian Orthodox Church.
The applicants challenged the statement in administrative court proceedings. As entities that the statute of the Russian Orthodox Church explicitly referred to, they considered themselves directly concerned by the Riigikogu’s statement. They argued that the statement damaged their reputation and interfered with their freedom of religion. The applicants asked the administrative court to order the Riigikogu to declare the statement erroneous in so far that it included them, and to declare that the applicants were not supporters of the Russian Federation’s military operation (complaint to eliminate unlawful consequences – heastamiskaebus). Alternatively, they asked the statement to be declared unlawful in the above extent.
The Tallinn Administrative Court refused to examine the applicants’ claim, noting that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the alleged unlawfulness of parliament’s legally non-binding political statements. The Tallinn Court of Appeal upheld that decision, but added that it was possible to lodge an action against parliament’s decisions under section 16 of the Constitutional Review Procedure Act. It would then be open to the Supreme Court – when adjudicating a claim lodged under that provision – to assess whether it also included parliament’s statements in its scope, and if not, to assess whether such limitation was in accordance with the Constitution.
It appears from the application lodged by the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate that it had lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of the Tallinn Court of Appeal, and that those proceedings were pending before the Supreme Court at the time it lodged the application with the Court on 29 November 2024. It has not informed the Court of any further developments in respect of those domestic proceedings, but noted on the application form that it considered the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court having no reasonable prospects of success.
It also appears from the application of the of the Pühtitsa Monastery, lodged with the Court on 29 November 2024, that it did not lodge an appeal on points of law against the decision of the Tallinn Court of Appeal.
The applicants complain that the Riigikogu’s political statement, which they consider derogatory, false and unsubstantiated, violated their rights under Article 9 of the Convention, read in the light of Article 11 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. In the event that there were no effective domestic remedies to exhaust, have the applicants complied with the time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
3. 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)?