Estonian Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Law That Threatens Orthodox Church

St. Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Tallinn. Photo: puhkaeestis.ee

TALLINN — Estonia’s highest court has upheld controversial amendments to the country’s Churches and Congregations Act, clearing the way for legislation that could ultimately be used against the Estonian Orthodox Christian Church.

The State Court, sitting en banc, ruled that the amendments comply with the Estonian Constitution, finding that the new provisions can be interpreted in a manner that does not lead to the arbitrary dissolution of religious organizations and therefore do not violate freedom of religion or freedom of association. This decision comes despite past criticisms from United Nations experts and even from Estonian President Alar Karis.

The legislation prohibits Estonian religious associations from maintaining certain administrative or financial ties with foreign religious organizations or spiritual leaders whose activities are deemed to pose a threat to Estonia’s national security, constitutional order, or public order.

The law was introduced amid mounting pressure from Estonian authorities on the Estonian Orthodox Church over its canonical ties to the Russian Orthodox Church. Government officials and lawmakers have demanded that the Church sever its relationship with the Moscow Patriarchate and amend both its statute and official name. Authorities have warned that failure to comply could result in the Church being declared unlawful because of its continued canonical unity with the Russian Orthodox Church.

According to court documents, Presidential legal adviser Hent Kalmo argued that Moscow’s influence allegedly undermines Estonia’s sovereignty and democratic order. The government has maintained that the amendments are necessary to prevent hostile foreign influence operations from reaching members of religious communities.

The legislation was first adopted by the Estonian Parliament in September 2025. President Alar Karis twice refused to promulgate the bill, arguing that it imposed disproportionate restrictions on citizens’ freedom of association and raised serious constitutional concerns. Lawmakers subsequently rejected the president’s objections and reapproved the legislation without substantive changes.

As a result, Karis referred the matter to the State Court for constitutional review.

In its ruling, the court acknowledged that the law interferes significantly with freedom of religion and association because it could potentially lead to the compulsory dissolution of religious organizations. However, the court concluded that national security and the protection of Estonia’s constitutional order constitute compelling state interests and that the law can be applied in a constitutionally compliant manner.

The court emphasized that any prohibited connection must involve a real and demonstrable threat, not merely an abstract concern. Such threats could include the incitement, support, or financing of activities directed against Estonia. The judges also stressed that the legislation does not prohibit theological, doctrinal, or confessional affiliation, as provisions restricting such connections were removed during the legislative process.

According to the judgment, compulsory dissolution of a religious organization may only be used as a measure of last resort. Before such action could be taken, a court would be required to provide the organization an opportunity to remedy any deficiencies and would be subject to judicial review and appeals.

The ruling was not unanimous. Six of the 17 State Court judges issued a dissenting opinion, arguing that the legislation fails to satisfy the principle of legal clarity, an essential safeguard for the protection of fundamental rights:

However, we note that although the contested provisions do not mention “confessional or doctrinal” connections, neither do they contain any reference to “administrative-organizational” connections. According to the new Section 3(2&³1;) and Section 4(1&³1;) of the Churches and Congregations Act, an Estonian religious association may not be “connected, on the basis of its statutes or another document underlying its activities,” with the foreign person listed in the provision. These provisions do not specify what type of “connection” is meant.

Of concern is the fact that the explanatory memorandum of January 23, 2025, expressly identified “profession of faith, its practice, and the conduct of religious rites and services” as examples of a “statutory connection” (see p. 3; the same reference appears on p. 1 of the explanatory memorandum dated June 11, 2025). Likewise, in paragraph 87 of the opinion submitted to the Supreme Court on November 18, 2025, the Government of the Republic stated that merely prohibiting hierarchical, managerial, or administrative ties would not be sufficient.

We consider that such a broad interpretation, which the wording of the law also permits, would not be constitutionally acceptable. For the sake of legal clarity, the norm itself must indicate what kind of “connection” may be prohibited if the other conditions are met. At present, this is not evident.

Shortly after the decision was announced, the Office of the President confirmed that Karis had signed the law.

In response, the Estonian Church acknowledged the court’s ruling but said it does not resolve fundamental questions surrounding the implementation of the legislation.

“The Supreme Court's decision is important, but it does not provide a definitive answer to several fundamental questions,” the Church said in a June 9 statement.

Church leaders noted that the court reviewed the law only in abstract constitutional terms and did not evaluate its application to any specific religious body. The Church argued that significant concerns remain regarding how freedom of religion and freedom of association can be protected if a religious organization faces dissolution because of canonical ties, regardless of whether its own activities pose any threat to Estonia.

The Church thanked President Karis and the six dissenting judges for highlighting what it described as serious legal concerns surrounding the law. It also indicated that it is considering an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that unresolved issues remain regarding protections guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights.

"The Estonian Orthodox Christian Church continues to emphasize that our activities and devotion to Christian ideals do not and cannot pose a threat to the security of the Estonian state, the constitutional order or public order. We have always considered it important to have an open and constructive dialogue with state authorities and we are ready to continue this in the future."

Previously, the UOJ reported that an Estonian court had ordered the EOCC to vacate its historic offices in Tallinn.

Read also