Estonian Church lawyers appeal to president over religious persecution

Tallinn, April 15, 2025

Photo: unn.ua     

Attorneys representing the Estonian Orthodox Christian Church (EOCC) and the Pükhtitsa Dormition Convent have filed an appeal with Estonian President Alar Karis regarding recent amendments to the Law on Churches and Congregations that effectively ban the Church for being part of the Moscow Patriarchate. The appeal, submitted on April 10, challenges changes adopted by the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament) Parliament adopts law on banning Estonian Orthodox Christian ChurchThe Riigikogu, Estonian Parliament, has adopted the law aimed at banning the Estonian Orthodox Christian Church.

“>on April 9.

The appeal was submitted by sworn attorneys Steven-Christo Evestus and Artur Knyazev, who argue that the amendments create additional grounds for the Minister of Internal Affairs to forcibly terminate the activities of religious associations, reports the EOCC.

Constitutional Concerns

According to the attorneys, the amendments represent “a particularly serious violation of religious freedom” by establishing legal grounds for the forced termination of law-abiding religious associations. They maintain that this “completely contradicts both the constitution of our state and international law.”

In their appeal, the lawyers point out that the Estonian Parliament had previously declared the Moscow Patriarchate an institution supporting Russian aggression. Based on this, they argue that all connections of the EOCC and Pükhtitsa Monastery with the Russian Orthodox Church would fall under the new grounds for termination.

“Freedom of religion protects both internal beliefs and the collective manifestation of faith,” the attorneys state in their appeal, citing Section 40 of the Estonian Constitution and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Protection of Religious Freedom

The lawyers emphasize that religious freedom can’t be restricted unless it harms public order, health, or morality. They note that there has been no justification provided that the existence of the EOCC or Pükhtitsa Monastery causes any such harm.

“In the lawmaking of a state governed by the rule of law, it’s completely unacceptable to leave without analysis and evaluation the impact and consequences of the law,” the appeal states. The lawyers point out that there’s no clear explanation of how the implementation of the law and removal of legal entities from the register would reduce security threats.

The appeal raises concerns about the future of approximately 180,000 people affected by the decision. According to the attorneys, the chairman of the Riigikogu’s Legal Affairs Committee acknowledged that there was no concrete action plan discussed for what would happen if canonical ties were not severed.

Legal Arguments

The lawyers argue that the law fails to meet several constitutional requirements:

1. Any restriction of basic rights must have a legal basis, be necessary in a democratic society, and not distort the essence of the restricted rights and freedoms.

2. Restrictions must be justified and proportionate to the legitimate goal being pursued.

3. Restrictions must not be discriminatory and must not be applied in a discriminatory manner.

They note that the EOCC and Pükhtitsa Monastery have been law-abiding, and there is no justification for depriving them of their existing right to operate.

Concerns About Implementation

The appeal expresses concern about the vague terminology used in the amendments, including terms like “person with significant influence,” “spiritual leader,” “connected,” and “guided by,” which they argue don’t provide clarity but allow the state to arbitrarily fill the law with content depending on political positions.

“No religious association whose canonical ties extend beyond Estonia can obtain a guarantee of unhindered continuation of its activities with law-abiding behavior,” the lawyers warn.

Proportionality Issues

The attorneys argue that the forced termination of a religious association is a radical ultima ratio measure that should only be used as a last resort. They state that the government hasn’t justified why existing regulations are insufficient or considered alternatives that would be less restrictive of fundamental rights.

“The state hasn’t analyzed why it’s impossible to achieve the goal by milder means, for example, through administrative supervision or an information obligation, instead of forcing a change in religion and membership in a church with a long history and traditions that people have chosen themselves,” the appeal states.

In conclusion, the attorneys request that the president not promulgate the amendment to the law, arguing that it contradicts the constitution and international law and “clearly contradicts the structure of a diverse democratic society.”

The appeal was signed by both attorneys as contractual representatives of the Estonian Orthodox Christian Church and the Pükhtitsa Dormition Stavropegial Convent.

Follow OrthoChristian on Twitter, Vkontakte, Telegram, WhatsApp, MeWe, and Gab!