The full court held that the amendments can be interpreted in a way that does not lead to the arbitrary forced dissolution of religious associations, and therefore do not violate freedom of religion or association.

Last year, President Karis challenged in the Supreme Court the amendments adopted by Parliament that prohibit an Estonian religious association from maintaining ties with a religious organization or spiritual leader located in a foreign country if that entity's activities threaten the Estonian state.

According to the explanatory memorandum, the aim of the amendments is to prevent hostile influence activities from reaching congregation members or people living in monasteries. The president argued, however, that the ban set out in the law is too broad and vague and places excessive restrictions on freedom of religion and association.

"The Supreme Court found that the president rightly pointed out problems with the clarity and comprehensibility of the law. However, not every ambiguity or need for interpretation renders a law unconstitutional. In this case, the majority of the court concluded that the law can be interpreted narrowly in such a way that the risks identified by the head of state can be mitigated in its application," explained the President of the Supreme Court, Villu Kõve.

The Court noted that, on the one hand, the contested law involves a serious interference with freedom of religion and association, as it may lead to the forced dissolution of a religious association, affecting all its members. On the other hand, national security and the constitutional order are also at stake, which generally carry greater weight.

According to the preamble of the Constitution, the state's primary task is to protect internal and external peace. Therefore, the state has a duty to take measures to prevent hostile influence activities. In the Court's view, the law does not allow arbitrary dissolution of religious organizations and can be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with the Constitution.

A real threat must be established

The Supreme Court explained that a connection between an Estonian religious association and a foreign religious organization becomes prohibited only if it poses a threat to Estonia's security, constitutional order, or public order. This threat must stem from the activities of the foreign religious organization and must be real, not merely abstract. For example, it could involve inciting, supporting, or financing activities against Estonia.

If such a threat arises, the Estonian religious association must sever any administrative ties — arising from its statutes or similar documents — with the foreign religious organization. This could include subordination to foreign oversight in personnel decisions or other governance matters. Economic dependence on a religious organization deemed dangerous is also prohibited. However, the law does not prohibit doctrinal or confessional affiliation, as such a ban was removed during the legislative process.

The Court emphasized that national security is an important constitutional value that can justify many restrictions. However, it should not become a cover for arbitrary state action. When fundamental rights are restricted to protect national security, the approach must be measured and cautious. Strong reasons are required before demanding that previously accepted ties of a religious association be severed.

Forced dissolution as a last resort

The Supreme Court stressed that, under the law, a legal entity may be dissolved only as a measure of last resort, when less restrictive solutions are not possible or effective. If the Minister of the Interior submits a request to a county court to dissolve a religious association, the court must first give the association a deadline to remedy deficiencies and then resolve the case based on the principle of investigation. The association may contest its dissolution in both the Circuit Court and the Supreme Court.

In discussions and explanatory materials concerning the law, as well as in subsequent court proceedings, the connection between the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church and the Pühtitsa Monastery with the Russian Orthodox Church has been cited as an example of the law's necessity. However, the Supreme Court reviewed the matter under abstract constitutional review at the president's request, meaning it assessed only the general constitutionality of the law. Therefore, it is not excluded that a court may reach a different conclusion in the future if the forced dissolution of a specific religious association is sought.

The full court is the Supreme Court's highest decision-making body, comprising all sitting justices. Seventeen justices participated in this case. Six of them issued dissenting opinions, arguing that the president's request should have been upheld because the law does not meet the requirement of legal clarity necessary to safeguard fundamental rights.

The dissenting justices were Villu Kõve (Chief Justice), Oliver Kask, Kai Kullerkupp, Saale Laos, Vahur-Peeter Liin, and Juhan Sarv.

The decision and dissenting opinions are available on the Supreme Court's website.

President's year-long dispute with Estonian Parliament

• On April 9, 2025, Parliament adopted the Churches and Congregations Act, which the president declined to promulgate on April 24, 2025.
• Parliament passed the law again in amended form on June 18, 2025, but the president once more refused to promulgate it on July 3, 2025, and proposed that Parliament reconsider the law and bring it into compliance with the Constitution.
• On September 17, 2025, Parliament adopted the amendments again without changes. The president then filed a request with the Supreme Court on October 3, 2025, to have the law declared unconstitutional.
• Because the Supreme Court's Constitutional Review Chamber had fundamental disagreements regarding the president's request, it referred the case in February this year to the full court, composed of all justices.

The amendments aim to ensure that religious organizations operating in Estonia cannot be used to incite hostility or violence. The law primarily affects the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church (formerly the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate), which would be required to sever ties with the Russian Orthodox Church.

A report published on April 13 by the Internal Security Service states that despite adopting a new name and making some changes to its statutes, the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church still seeks to present itself as independent while its activities continue to be directed by the Russian Orthodox Church. The latter continues to cooperate with Russian security agencies, according to the report.

Last year, six clergy members of the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church were barred from entering Schengen or Estonia due to security concerns; this year, one additional priest has been banned.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!