European Court ruling on religious freedom and property disputes in Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgement on 9 October 2025 in Religious Community of Svyato-Uspenskyy Parish v Ukraine (Application no. 8906/19), finding a violation of Article 9 concerning the state's failure to protect a religious community's use of its church building during a dispute with another religious group.

Background and procedural history

The applicant community, registered in 1991 and belonging to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church associated with the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC MP), owned and used the Church of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary in Ptycha village, Rivne Region. From 2014, tensions escalated between the applicant community and parishioners of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC KP) against the backdrop of Russia's actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

Following violent incidents and disputes over the building's use, domestic authorities imposed a freezing order on the church building on 19 January 2016. After that order was lifted on 2 April 2018, further incidents occurred the same day involving masked individuals breaking into the church. On 3 April 2018, another freezing order was imposed, prohibiting all use of the building. The Rivne Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision on 2 May 2018, finding it necessary to prevent destruction or damage to the property.

Admissibility considerations

The Court addressed preliminary issues concerning the application's scope. Complaints relating to events before 2 April 2018 were declared inadmissible as lodged outside the six-month time limit. Additionally, new complaints submitted by the applicant's lawyer in 2023 concerning the community's 2019 change of canonical jurisdiction were rejected as out of time.

A significant procedural challenge arose when the Government requested to strike out the application under Article 37 § 1(a), noting that on 1 April 2019 the community had voted to join the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) and dismissed its original parson. The Court found that whilst the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 should be struck out (as property rights belonged to the legal entity which no longer wished to pursue the application), the Article 9 complaint could continue. The Court emphasised that official recognition or legal personality are not prerequisites for exercising Article 9 rights, and evidence showed the original community continued to exist de facto as a religious group.

Article 9 assessment

The Court acknowledged the considerable challenge faced by Ukrainian authorities in managing the long-standing dispute, noting substantial police deployment to guard the church building. However, it found the authorities' response deficient in several respects.

Crucially, the domestic authorities prohibited use of the church building entirely within criminal proceedings, without adequately considering that the applicant community, as legal owner, held the exclusive right to use it. The Court noted only one investigative step had been identified despite multiple alleged offences on 2 April 2018, and that those involved or their affiliated groups were apparently known to police.

The Court emphasised that the authorities' role in conflicts between religious groups is not to eliminate pluralism by removing the cause of tension, but to ensure competing groups tolerate each other. In this case, they eliminated the tension source by prohibiting all use of the building. The state failed to demonstrate that the steps taken were sufficient or that alternative measures were unavailable.

The Court concluded that authorities had not taken sufficient steps to ensure peaceful enjoyment of Article 9 rights by the applicant community, finding a violation. No award for damages or costs was made, as the applicant failed to establish a causal link for pecuniary damage and provided insufficient documentation for legal expenses.