In 2014, following the annexation of Crimea to Russia, the Kyiv Patriarchate’s number of priests dropped from 25 to nine. Intimidation, land seizures and looting perpetrated by Russian law enforcement forced many to put the key under the door. And while the church initially received some support to remain, it’s refusal to re-register under Russian law represented a terrible blow.

“We may lose this, the only place we have left […] Having taken everything – language, feast days, correct information – they now have the cheek to take this as well” said church member Maria.

The Kyiv Patriarchate had long been unpopular with Russian authorities, having denounced the aggression and occupation of Crimea from the beginning. The conditional offer to remain providing they keep quiet about the situation on the peninsula was pulled back. Since as an entity it wouldn’t comply with the imposed jurisdiction, it could no longer pay for utilities or sign leases. Priests who refused to take on Russian nationality could no longer hold services. The church was quickly becoming an illegal, criminalised entity.

EHRAC trained lawyers from the Regional Human Rights Centre, who took on the case on behalf of the diocese. The centre explains that having submitted an appeal of cessation to the Crimean courts, the Russian Federation government suspended the evictions for a time. “It was quiet during that period. Then, the court declined our appeal and they tried to evict the church again. After that we submitted Rule 39 to the European Court of Human Rights regarding RF’s actions. As a result, the bailiffs were called off and courts suspended judgement…”

Rule 39 indicates a set of interim, urgent measures which “apply only where there is an imminent risk of irreparable harm”. (European Convention on Human Rights Factsheet – Interim measures). While Rule 39 does not provide a judgement per se, it enabled the RHRC team to buy time.

Back in 2018-19, RCHR took part in a series of trainings and group work in Kyiv as part of EHRAC’s capacity building programme. Training included the Rule 39 process and its application, and select lawyers also attended a trip to the ECtHR in Strasbourg, during which he got the chance to meet court officials and registry lawyers. EHRAC “is our primary means of professional development at the international level […] We received new knowledge and skills that were very important to us” says Sirgey Zayets, the senior lawyer at EHRAC, who worked on the submissions.

RHRC also supported the Kyiv Orthodox Church to go to the United Nations Human Rights Committee and request they make a declaration that attention should be paid to their situation. This was successfully received and Sergey posted the letter on Facebook which states “the Committee hereby reiterates its request to the State party not to evict the authors - the congregation of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine”. Since shared by the Crimean Human Rights Group and journalists on social media, Sergey hopes to draw further attention to the case.

“I’m sure I wouldn’t be able to get such a result without working with EHRAC. We were able to do the intervention due to the activities of this organisation. It’s the most experienced organisation when it comes to strategic litigation” Sergey concludes.

“People in Crimea are often afraid to challenge what the Russian Federation is doing. They are afraid and don’t believe they can change anything”. But the diocese is determined. It has now launched its fifth appeal to the European Convention on Human Rights and 62 Ukrainian Orthodox Church members have appealed to the UN Human Rights Committee.