the criteria refer to the ROC’s ability to influence or control UOC communities due to their ecclesiastical relationship with the ROC and the ROC charter. This grants the state almost unlimited discretion in deciding which UOC community should be banned and when. This is – again – based on the ROC’s view of the UOC rather than the UOC’s v

held at the Russian-controlled Crimean Supreme Court in Simferopol, he was found guilty of alleged “espionage” and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment in a strict regime labour camp Russian occupation forces also in 2023 pressured another local UOC priest, Fr Vladimir Saviisky, to accept the forcible transfer of the Berdyansk Diocese from the

This contradicts international human rights law, as noted above, which requires a state to punish provable illegal behaviour on the part of individuals, but not religious communities which cannot be proved to have committed crimes. Also as noted above, deprivation of legal status can be used only as a measure of last resort when other measures are

This could mean that deprivation of legal status of a religious community can legally happen only when the entire leadership or the majority of members – not just individual leaders or members – are directly involved in illegal activities. “The fact that some individuals engage in such [illegal] acts is not an indication that an entire religi

Law No. 3894-IX banning the Russian Orthodox Church – Moscow Patriarchate (ROC) and Ukrainian religious organisations affiliated with the ROC comes into force on 23 September. Its main target is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). While addressing real security concerns over the ROC’s involvement in Russian aggression, the Law does not comply