We successfully represented the Government of Estonia in constitutional review proceedings before the Supreme Court en banc concerning the constitutionality of amendments to the Churches and Congregations Act. The proceedings were initiated after the president refused to promulgate the law, arguing that the amendments disproportionately restricted freedom of religion and freedom of association.
On 8 June 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed the president’s application and upheld the contested amendments as constitutional. The court found that, among other things, the provisions were sufficiently clear and could be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with the Constitution.
A landmark constitutional dispute concerning freedom of religion in case of foreign ties posing a threat
The judgment is significant in that it clarifies the scope of restrictions that may be imposed on religious associations in Estonia when concerns arise over links with foreign entities or spiritual leaders. A central issue in the case was whether the contested amendments impermissibly interfered with freedom of religion and freedom of association by requiring certain ties with foreign religious structures to be terminated.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court explained that the contested provisions must be understood narrowly and applied carefully. The court found that the law does not target confessional, theological or doctrinal ties as such. Instead, it concerns administrative/organisational ties, and economic dependence between an Estonian religious association and a foreign religious centre, governing body, or spiritual leader that poses a threat to Estonia’s security or to constitutional or public order. This distinction was central to the court’s reasoning, as it confirmed that the amendments are not intended to regulate religious belief or teaching in themselves.
The court also provided important guidance on the threshold for applying the law. It emphasised that the relevant threat cannot be abstract or hypothetical. Rather, the law may only be applied where a real and specific threat has been established based on the facts of the particular case. In addition, the court clarified that the relevant danger must arise from the foreign entity or leader in question, not merely from the existence of a historical, symbolic or broadly defined connection. According to the court, any assessment must therefore be based on concrete circumstances rather than general assumptions.
Our services and client team
We advised and represented the Government of Estonia throughout the constitutional review proceedings before the Supreme Court. The government was represented by partner Allar Jõks, with the support of senior associate Ulrika Paavle.
