In Religious Community of Svyato-Uspenskyy Parish of Rivne Eparchy of Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ptycha Village of Dubenskyy District v Ukraine [2025] ECHR 223 (one of the longest case references I’ve ever seen), the parish (“Ptycha”) complained that, after a split within the parish over the issue of jurisdiction, the domestic authorities had failed to comply with their obligations under Article 9 ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 regarding the liturgical use and peaceful possession of the parish’s church building [1].

Ptycha parish complained that, after an internal split over the issue of jurisdiction, the domestic authorities had failed to meet their obligations under Article 9 ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 regarding the liturgical use and peaceful possession of the parish’s church building [1].

Background

The history is complicated. Ptycha parish had originally belonged to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (“UOC”), then (and now) under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate [1]; however, tensions subsequently arose between those loyal to the UOC and those who preferred the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate (“UOC KP”) [9]. In 2015, the Ptycha Village Council “authorised” the shared use of the church building and recommended a schedule of alternate use – apparently without Ptycha parish’s consent. In March 2016, the Rivne Regional Commercial Court set that decision aside and ruled that, as the owner, Ptycha had the right of exclusive use and that the local authority had no authority to require shared use [11]. Further proceedings culminated in an order freezing the use of the church because of a perceived threat that persons linked to either the Kyiv or the Moscow Patriarchate might destroy the building [13-19]. Further proceedings on a second freezing order in 2018 were finally upheld by the Court of Appeal [20-25].

In 2019, the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (“OCU”) was established with the blessing of the Ecumenical Patriarch, with Metropolitan Epifaniy as its head. The OCU included most of the former UOC KP parishes [26] and the applicant community’s general assembly voted unanimously to remain with the Moscow Patriarchate [29]. Crucially, however, the UOC KP parishioners operating in the village of Ptycha joined the OCU [30].

The arguments

The Government submitted that, in view of the parishioners of Ptycha’s decision to join the OCU, the community which had made the application no longer existed. It submitted a letter dated 14 July 2023 and signed by a Mr P Baran in the name of Ptycha parish, stressing that it did not support the application [46] and applied for the application to be struck out [47].

Ptycha parish argued that the decision to change the subordination of the community had been taken by individuals who were not community members. No community member had attended the general assembly held on 1 April 2019 at which the decision had been taken, and it had therefore been adopted in breach of the Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organisations Act, which required two-thirds of community members to vote for such a change [48]. Further, the community’s statute provided that it could only be amended with the UOC Archbishop of Rivne’s consent. No such consent had been given [49], and Mr Baran had had no authority to claim to represent it [50].

The judgment

The Court noted that it had repeatedly held that the role of the authorities in situations of conflicts between several religious groups is not to remove the cause of tension by eliminating pluralism, but to ensure that the competing groups tolerate each other [87]. In the present case, the authorities had eliminated the source of tension by prohibiting the use of the church building altogether and had not shown that those steps were sufficient and that no other measures had been available to them [88]. They had not, therefore, demonstrated that they had taken sufficient steps to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of the rights guaranteed by Article 9 [89], and there had therefore been a violation of that Article [90]. The application in relation to A1P1 [63] was dismissed, seemingly for lack of evidence of ownership.