Religion – Weltanschauung – Recht [ RWR ]

The case Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia (applications nos. 8019/16, 43800/14, 28525/20 and 11055/22) concerned the conflict that began in eastern Ukraine in 2014 following the arrival in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of pro-Russian armed groups, and escalated after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine beginning on 24 February 2022… Ukraine alleged repeated violations of human rights by Russia…

In today’s Grand Chamber judgment the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that, in respect of the conflict in Ukraine between 11 May 2014 – when the hostilities started – and 16 September 2022 – when Russia ceased to be a party to the European Convention on Human Rights – there had been patterns of violations of… Article… 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion)…

The Court underlined that the nature and scale of the violence in Ukraine and the ominous statements from Russia concerning Ukraine’s right to exist had threatened peace in Europe. It said that “In none of the conflicts previously before [it had] there been such near universal condemnation of the ‘flagrant’ disregard by the respondent State for the foundations of the international legal order established after the Second World War.”

The Court found that Russia had had jurisdiction, giving rise to Convention obligations, in respect of the territory that it had occupied in Ukraine. It also concluded, unanimously, that Russia had exercised authority and control over individuals affected by its military attacks across Ukraine and that these individuals had therefore been within its jurisdiction. Russia was responsible for acts and omissions of the Russian military and of the separatist entities in eastern Ukraine.

Taken as a whole, the vast volume of evidence before the Court presented a picture of interconnected practices of manifestly unlawful conduct by agents of the Russian State (Russian armed forces and other authorities, occupying administrations, and separatist armed groups and entities) on a massive scale across Ukraine.

This pattern or system of violations included… intimidation, harassment and persecution of all religious groups other than adherents of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate…

Description of the case and complaints

The applicants in this case are Ukraine and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Russian Federation is the respondent State.

The case arose from events which began in the spring of 2014 with the occupation and annexation by Russia of Crimea (the subject of another judgment, delivered on 25 June 2024), part of Ukrainian sovereign territory, and the arrival of armed groups in eastern Ukraine, in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions (the Donbas). The armed groups subsequently took control of territory in these regions and declared independence from Ukraine, establishing the “Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”) and the “Lugansk People’s Republic” (“LPR”)…

The nature of the conflict substantially changed on 24 February 2022 when Russia launched a fullscale invasion of Ukraine. Russian armed forces entered Ukrainian territory at various border points and launched attacks by land, air and sea. Ukrainian towns and cities in the north, south and east were subjected to heavy airstrikes and artillery fire, causing large-scale death, injury and destruction.

Over the subsequent years, control over territory in Ukraine has shifted in the face of Russian advances and Ukrainian counter-offensives. Heavy fighting continues on multiple fronts. Russian aerial strikes continue across Ukraine.

The Russian Federation ceased to be a High Contracting Party to the European Convention on Human Rights as from 16 September 2022. This followed resolutions by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 16 March 2022 (CM/Res(2022)2) and the Plenary of the European Court on 22 March 2022.

The case encompassed … inter-State applications, namely:

• Ukraine v. Russia (no. 8019/16), lodged in 2014, concerning Ukraine’s allegations of a pattern (“administrative practice”) of human-rights violations by Russia in the context of the conflict in eastern Ukraine involving pro-Russian separatists from spring 2014. They relied in particular on Articles 2, 3, 4 § 2, 5, 9, 10, 11 and 14 of the European Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention…
• Ukraine v. Russia (no. 11055/22), lodged on 28 February 2022, concerning the Ukrainian Government’s allegations of mass and gross human-rights violations committed by Russia in its military operations on the territory of Ukraine since 24 February 2022. They alleged administrative practices notably in violation of Articles 2, 3, 4 § 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 of the Convention and of Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention…

Procedural background

On 26 January 2022, the Grand Chamber held a hearing on the admissibility of applications nos. 8019/16, 43800/14 and 28525/20 (“the Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia case”). On 30 November 2022, it declared these applications partially admissible in a decision that was delivered on 25 January 2023.

On 17 February 2023 the Grand Chamber decided to join Ukraine v. Russia (no. 11055/22) to the Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia case. It also decided to examine the admissibility and merits of application no. 11055/22 jointly under Article 29 § 2 of the Convention and at the same time as the merits of the proceedings in the other three applications. A Grand Chamber hearing was held in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 12 June 2024.

The former judge elected in respect of Russia sat on the case for the hearing on admissibility in January 2022 but later withdrew. The President then decided to appoint another judge from the Court to sit as an ad hoc judge.

Twenty-six State Parties to the Convention were granted leave to make written submissions and they submitted a common written intervention. A number of these States made, in addition, separate written submissions.

The 26 State Parties were also granted leave to make oral submissions at the Grand Chamber hearing and delivered a common oral intervention. In addition, Poland and the United Kingdom made separate oral submissions.

The Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, the Human Rights Law Centre of the University of Nottingham… were granted leave to submit written third-party interventions at the merits stage.

Composition of the Court

Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:

Mattias Guyomar (France), President,

Síofra O’Leary (Ireland),
Arnfinn Bårdsen (Norway),
Ioannis Ktistakis (Greece),
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer (Austria),
Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Poland),
Faris Vehabović (Bosnia and Herzegovina),
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström (Monaco),
Georgios A. Serghides, (Cyprus),
Tim Eicke (the United Kingdom),
Lətif Hüseynov (Azerbaijan),
Jovan Ilievski (North Macedonia),
Jolien Schukking (the Netherlands),
Erik Wennerström (Sweden),
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Germany),
Diana Sârcu (the Republic of Moldova),
Mykola Gnatovskyy (Ukraine), judges,

and also Abel Campos, Deputy Registrar.

Decision of the Court

…

The Court made the following findings of repeated violations of the Convention, many of which had taken place over a period of more than eight years:

…

Intimidation, harassment and persecution of all religious groups other than the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (the UOC-MP), from 11 May 2014 to 16 September 2022, in violation of Article 9.

Since May 2014 freedom of religion had been significantly curtailed in the occupied territories, and this had continued after the 2022 invasion. Religious leaders not belonging to the UOC-MP had been abducted, and in some cases ill-treated and killed, and their churches and property seized and destroyed. Throughout this whole period, “laws” and other provisions banning “sects” and requiring re-registration of religious groups had been applied to justify the confiscation of religious material and to prevent religious worship outside the UOC-MP community, targeting other Christian communities, Muslim communities and especially Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Unlawful deprivation of liberty, ill-treatment and torture and extrajudicial killing of civilians because of their religion had clearly not been justified. There was no evidence of a legal basis in respect of the other measures. The Court also noted that legal acts outlawing “extremism” in very broad terms or limiting the right to manifest religion only to the followers of registered religious organisations had lacked safeguards against abuse, indeed, such restrictions were fundamentally inconsistent with freedom of religion.

…

Just satisfaction (Article 41)

The Court found that the question of compensation under Article 41 of the Convention was not yet ready for decision. It noted that any future award to Ukraine would have to have due regard to the establishment of the Register of Damages by the Council of Europe and the ongoing discussions concerning a future compensation mechanism…

Binding force and implementation (Article 46)

The Court reiterated that it was primarily for the State concerned to choose the means to be used to comply with its legal obligations under Article 46 of the Convention. However, where the nature of the violation found was such as to leave no real choice as to the measures required to remedy it, the Court could decide to indicate individual measures…

The Committee of Ministers continues to supervise the implementation of the Court’s judgments against Russia and Russia is required, pursuant to Article 46 § 1 of the Convention, to enforce them despite the cessation of its membership of the Council of Europe.

Press release ECHR 173 (2025) 09.07.2025