The President of the Republic of Estonia, Alar Karis challenged before the Supreme Court amendments adopted by the Estonian Parliament that prohibit an Estonian religious association from maintaining ties with a religious organisation or spiritual leader located in a foreign country whose activities pose a threat to the Estonian State.
 

Pursuant to the explanatory memorandum, the purpose of the amendments is to prevent that hostile influence operations reach the members of the congregation or people living in monasteries. However, according to the President, the prohibition set out in the contested law is overly broad and unclear and excessively restricts freedom of religion and association.
 

“The Supreme Court found that the President of the Republic rightly drew attention in his petition to the problems concerning the clarity and comprehensibility of the law. At the same time, not every ambiguity or need for interpretation necessarily renders a law unconstitutional. In the present case, the majority of the Supreme Court concluded that when applying the law, it could be interpreted narrowly, in a way that mitigates the risks identified by the Head of State,” explained the President of the Supreme Court, Villu Kõve.
 

The Supreme Court noted in its judgment that, on the one hand, the contested law involves a serious interference with freedom of religion and association, since it could lead to the compulsory dissolution of a religious association, affecting all persons belonging to it. On the other hand, national security and constitutional order are also at stake, which generally constitute more weighty interests.
 

According to the preamble of the Constitution, the State's primary task is to safeguard internal and external peace. The State therefore has an obligation to take measures to prevent hostile influence activities. In the view of the Supreme Court, the contested law does not permit arbitrary compulsory dissolution of religious associations and can be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with the Constitution.
 

A real threat must be established
 

The Supreme Court explained that a connection between an Estonian religious association and a foreign religious organisation becomes prohibited only if it poses a threat to the national security, constitutional order, or public order of Estonia. The threat must be attributable to the activities of a foreign religious organisation and must be real, not abstract. Such a threat may consist, for example, in inciting, supporting, or financing activities directed against Estonia.
 

If such a threat exists, the Estonian religious association must terminate any administrative tie with the foreign religious organisation arising from the statutes or a similar governing document of the Estonian association. Such a connection may include subordination to foreign control in preselection of personnel or other management matters. Economic dependence on a foreign religious organisation considered dangerous is likewise prohibited. However, the law does not prohibit confessional or doctrinal affiliation, since such a prohibition was removed from the draft law during the legislative process.
 

The Supreme Court emphasised that national security is an important constitutional value that can justify different restrictions. However, it should not become a cover for arbitrary state action. When fundamental rights are restricted for the purpose of protecting national security, the concept must be applied with restraint and caution. There must be compelling reasons for requiring a religious association to sever ties that have previously been accepted.
 

Compulsory dissolution is a measure of last resort
 

The Supreme Court stressed that under the law a legal entity may be dissolved only as a measure of last resort when less restrictive solutions are unavailable or ineffective. If the Minister of the Interior submits an application to a district court, seeking the compulsory dissolution of a religious association, the court must first grant the association a deadline to eliminate any deficiencies and then resolve the matter in accordance with the principle of judicial investigation. The association may challenge its compulsory dissolution before the Circuit Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

 

In discussions and explanatory materials concerning the contested draft law, as well as in the subsequent court proceedings, the necessity of the amendments has been illustrated by the connections between the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church and the Pühtitsa Convent and the Russian Orthodox Church. However, the Supreme Court examined the case at the request of the President of the Republic in abstract constitutional review proceedings, which allow the Court to assess the constitutionality of a law only in general terms. Therefore, it is not excluded that if the compulsory dissolution of a specific religious association is sought in the future, the Court could reach a different conclusion.

 

The Supreme Court en banc is the highest decision-making body of this court and consists of all sitting Supreme Court justices. Seventeen justices participated in the adjudication of this case. Six judges attached dissenting opinion to the judgment, arguing that the petition of the President of the Republic should have been upheld because the contested law does not comply with the principle of legal clarity, which is important for ensuring the protection of fundamental rights.