Riigikohus, the Estonian Supreme Court, in an 11-6 decision on Monday refused to declare as unconstitutional a set of amendments to the Churches and Congregations Act (the Act) that would have restricted domestic religious organizations from associating with a foreign religious organization or spiritual leader.

The Court rejected Estonia President Alar Karis’s assertions that the amendments were too broad, too vague, and places excessive restrictions on freedom of religion and freedom of association. The said amendments to the Act were passed over concerns regarding threats to national security that could stem from the above-mentioned associations with foreign organizations or leaders.

Essentially, the amendments aim to prevent religious organizations operating in Estonia be as tools to promote hostility and violence. Although the amendments primarily target the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church, it more generally impacts all religious organizations.

The Court found that the president “rightly drew attention to problems in the clarity and comprehensibility of the Act,” but emphasized that “not all ambiguity and the need for interpretation always lead to the unconstitutionality of the law.” The majority opined that the Act can be interpreted narrowly such that the risks identified by the president in its implementation. The Court also noted that national security and constitutional order can justify restrictions on religious freedom and freedom of association.

The Court elaborated:

According to the preamble to the Constitution, the primary function of the state is to protect internal and external peace. Thus, the state has an obligation to take measures to prevent hostile influence activities. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, the disputed law does not allow for the arbitrary compulsory dissolution of religious associations and it can be interpreted and implemented in accordance with the Constitution.

…the connection of an Estonian religious association with a foreign religious organisation becomes prohibited if and only if it poses a threat to the security of the Estonian state, constitutional or public order. That risk must be expressed in the activities of a religious association established in a foreign country and must be actual, not abstract. The danger may consist of, for example, incitement, support or financing of anti-Estonian activities…

…national security is a weighty constitutional value that can be used to justify many restrictions. However, this should not become a cover for the arbitrariness of the state. If fundamental rights are restricted for the purpose of protecting national security, it is necessary to exercise restraint and caution in their content. There must be compelling reasons for demanding the severance of ties between religious communities that have been accepted so far.

The Court also did not shy away from endorsing the legislative commentary of the Act citing the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church’s association with a Russian orthodox Church as an example of a threat to Estonia’s national security. However, the Court rejected the president’s claim that the amendments cause an “arbitrary compulsory dissolution” of religious organizations in Estonia stating that such a extreme measure is only available as a last resort when less restrictive solutions are not possible or effective.

The decision was given by an en banc panel of all 17 justices of Riigikohus. Six justices diseented stating that the amendments should have been declared void for their vagueness, and that clarity is important for guaranteeing fundamental rights. As of an April 13 report published by Estonia’s Internal Security Service, the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church continues to be directed by the Russian Orthodox Church despite its claims of independence, and cooperates with Russian security agencies.