This week, the Verkhovna Rada planned to pass at first reading a draft law that would start the process of banning the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (in unity with the Moscow Patriarchate, although the church itself insists that it no longer has ties to Moscow) at the state level.
Discussions of the need for a special law to limit the activities of Churches controlled by Russia in Ukraine have continued since the full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022. Several drafts have been tabled in the Rada since last year, and now MPs were supposed to start considering them, writes the Ukrainian service of the BBC.
Throughout this spring, many regions across Ukraine are in turmoil – there are reports of clashes or conflicts around churches, local authorities are taking land and churches from the UOC (MP), transitions are ongoing, which are accompanied by scandals. Often all this happens beyond the legal framework so all these processes, experts say, should be normalized.
After difficult compromises, the “softest” of the draft laws, which involves a complex and lengthy procedure for banning religious communities affiliated with Russia, was supposed to be voted on in the Rada this week. Ahead of second reading, the finalized version had to be amended and made tougher for the UOC (MP).
This is a government draft that President Volodymyr Zelensky asked to be designed and submitted to the Verkhovna Rada back in December.
However, the vote never took place – the issue was postponed until at least late May. Although the Parliament Speaker, Ruslan Stefanchuk, said on April 21 that the law banning Moscow-affiliated churches would be voted on at first reading at the upcoming meetings, which took place on May 2 and 3.
The UOC (MP) opposes the adoption of any law regarding the ban, branding this a violation of human rights.
What was to be voted
The Rada was to vote in a government draft law No. 8371. It is believed to be the “softest” among other initiatives to ban the UOC (MP).
For example, the alternative document tabled by the European Solidarity faction (No.8221) envisages the immediate ban of the UOC (MP), while the proposals of a group of deputies from different factions (No. 8262) call for the rapid act to deprive the UOC of its property and the facilitation of the transition of communities to the OCU.
Instead, the government document provides a complex mechanism for moving towards a ban.
The State Service for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience must first establish that a certain religious organization has its center in Russia. Then the service issues a prescription to correct this situation.
And if this does not happen, then DESS files a lawsuit to the court, which should already make a decision on the ban.
Why is it very difficult?
First, the legal process could take a long time, while the actual ban can take years from the moment the law is passed.
Secondly, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (MP) does not exist as a legal entity – there are separate units that should be sued – the Kyiv Metropolitanate, dioceses, and individual parishes. And there are about 10,000 such legal entities that need to be sued.
Back in December 2022, the special expert commission of the State Agency for Ethnopolicies and Freedom of Conscience officially established the connection of the UOC with the Moscow Patriarchate. The UOC (MP) itself does not agree with this, declaring its independence from Moscow. Although they admit they never declared full autocephaly.
In any case, the State Agency for Ethnopolicies and Freedom of Conscience has grounds for a lawsuit, but how long litigation can last, and whether it is even possible to imagine thousands of lawsuits – these questions still remain open.
However, as the interlocutors of the BBC in church circles point out, this is the most legitimate judicial way and will not cause sharp condemnation in the West regarding the violation of religious freedom and human rights. After all, according to the European tradition, only the court is entitled to decide on banning certain religious organizations.
That is why the government, in cooperation with the State Agency for Ethnopolicies and Freedom of Conscience, prescribed preciselyu such a mechanism to spark as little criticism as possible from Western partners.
Many supporters of a more active fight against the UOC (MP) in the government and opposition really hope that certain norms from alternative drafts can be added to it ahead of second reading.
This can be a simplification of the ban on certain legal entities of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (MP), and a facilitated procedure for how state property can be taken from a lease.
Why not vote?
Several interlocutors of the BBC in parliament, among the critics of the government project, pointed out that it was with this strategy that they planned to vote for it at first reading, in order to eventually amend it and achieve a compromise.
However, unexpected obstacles appeared on this path, too.
Although the struggle for spiritual independence is one of Volodymyr Zelensky’s slogans, and the president himself commissioned the drafting of this draft law, it is in his ruling faction that there is a large group of opponents of the UOC (MP) ban. And their positions are quite strong.
According to the BBC interlocutors in the Rada, it was precisely because of this that the voting was postponed several times – MPs simply could not gather enough votes. And there is no certainty that the vote will not be postponed further. It comes to the point that in the Servant of the People itself, out of more than 200 MPs, more than a third may speak against the “church law,” sources claim.
And some, such as MP Artem Dmytruk (former member of the Servant of the People faction), publicly criticize the authorities over what he calls oppression of the UOC (MP), and even complained about it to the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. This position is not publicly supported by many of his colleagues in the Council.
Therefore, as interlocutors in parliament in general and in the ruling faction in particular admit, it is now difficult to gather votes even to pass the “softest” draft law before making it tougher ahead of second reading.
According to the BBC, the next attempt to consider the ban on the UOC (MP) may take place late spring or early summer.
How can it work?
Religious expert Andrii Smirnov emphasizes that the public has long been waiting for answers from parliament to many challenges in the religious sphere against the background of war, power confrontations around churches and property, as well as Russian influence on the UOC (MP).
It should be recalled that local councils are massively terminating land lease agreements with UOC (MP) communities, trying to take away state-owned churches from them. All this is happening chaotically, and in some places, as with the decisions of local councils to ban the UOC (MP), even illegally.
“If the law is passed in its current version, we will face legal proceedings that can last for years,” Smirnov suggests.
Despite this, he emphasizes that even this bill could become a certain incentive and legitimization of the authorities’ actions on the ground.
“Legislative changes would increase the pressure on the UOC leadership, legitimize the actions of local authorities, and could create prerequisites for depriving the UOC MP of the right to further utilize state property. As a result, lease contracts for cultural heritage objects, which will mainly be transferred to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, will be prematurely terminated,” Smirnov suggests.
If the parliament is not able to pass any law regarding the UOC (MP), then the processes that have already started massively across the regions will continue “in order of appearance”.
The Ukrainian Orthodox Church (in unity with the Moscow Patriarchate) calls all the decisions of the authorities regarding its structures, churches, and land illegitimate, and consistently challenges them in courts, promising to continue doing so in the future.
An example of such a long-term confrontation is the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, where the government terminated the lease agreement with the UOC (MP) monastery back in March, but still cannot take over the property. At the same time, the confrontation between the Ministry of Culture and the monastery has moved to the litigation level.
