Can UOC eparchies be dissolved before court ruling on Metropolia?

Court. UOJ collage

For more than a year now, the lawsuit brought by DESS seeking the dissolution of the Kyiv Metropolia of the UOC has been making its way through the courts, with no end yet in sight. Hearings are frequently postponed, while the court considers various motions. On September 24, 2026, DESS announced that the Supreme Court had opened another appellate proceeding in the case, following a complaint filed by the Kyiv Metropolia.

For many, this creates the impression that until the court rules in the Kyiv Metropolia case, UOC eparchies, monasteries, and other religious organizations are not at risk of having their activities terminated under Law No. 3894-IX “On the Protection of the Constitutional Order in the Sphere of Activities of Religious Organizations” – commonly referred to as the law banning the UOC.

Let us recall the logic of the law. The Kyiv Metropolia is subject to prohibition because of its alleged affiliation with the Russian Orthodox Church. Eparchies are subject to prohibition because of their affiliation with the Kyiv Metropolia. Parishes and monasteries, in turn, because of their affiliation with their eparchies. The law does indeed provide for what amounts to derivative affiliation – affiliation with a religious organization that is itself affiliated with a prohibited foreign religious organization.

Common sense suggests that this chain cannot proceed any further without a court ruling banning the Kyiv Metropolia. But the law has a logic of its own. And a state that has decided to ban the country’s largest Church has a logic all its own.

And now we are already seeing a wave of DESS actions against eparchies, monasteries, and a synodal department – investigations, orders, and lawsuits seeking to terminate their activities.

On July 13, 2026, the court opened separate case No. 855/8/26 seeking to terminate the activities of the Holy Intercession Holosiiv Hermitage. Before that, DESS had conducted a separate investigation into the monastery, identified signs of affiliation, and designated it an affiliated organization.
On July 22, DESS identified signs of affiliation involving the Pochaiv Lavra.
On August 24, it did the same with the Zaporizhzhia Eparchy.
On September 4, DESS launched an investigation into the Balta Eparchy.
On September 9, DESS identified signs of affiliation involving the Boryspil Eparchy.

In all these cases, the principal basis for their “guilt” is their affiliation with the Kyiv Metropolia.

At the same time, proceedings of an entirely different kind have emerged against the Rovenky Eparchy and the UOC Synodal Department for Family Affairs. Here, DESS bases its claims not on affiliation, but on the criminal convictions of authorized representatives of these organizations. More on this below.

Why has DESS suddenly stepped up its campaign?? Why is the agency putting the cart before the horse? And what happens if the court refuses to dissolve the Kyiv Metropolia?

Kyiv Metropolia has already been declared affiliated with ROC

To understand what is happening, we need to look closely at what DESS is actually asking the court to do in the Kyiv Metropolia case.
DESS is not asking the court to declare the Metropolia affiliated with the Russian Orthodox Church. The law does not require this – a decision by DESS itself is sufficient for such a designation. That decision already exists: Order No. N-127/11 of August 27, 2025. It officially designated the Kyiv Metropolia of the UOC as “affiliated with a foreign religious organization whose activities are prohibited in Ukraine.”

In its lawsuit, DESS is asking the court:

to dissolve the Kyiv Metropolia as a legal entity;
to transfer its funds, property, and other assets – with the exception of property used for religious purposes – to the state;
to establish a two-month period for creditors to submit claims.

Therefore, even if the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal rejects the DESS lawsuit, the order declaring affiliation with the ROC will not automatically cease to have effect. Unfortunately, in formal legal terms, this remains the Kyiv Metropolia’s current status.

That means DESS can designate eparchies as affiliated with the Kyiv Metropolia and, on that basis, ask courts to dissolve them.

The statutory mechanism allows DESS to issue orders to organizations displaying signs of affiliation with an organization already designated as affiliated with a prohibited foreign religious body.

The Kyiv Metropolia’s lawyers are well aware of this danger. On September 8, 2025, the Metropolia asked the court, as an interim measure, to suspend Order No. N-127/11, but the request was denied.

The Kyiv Metropolia also filed a lawsuit seeking to have Order No. N-127/11 declared unlawful and annulled. Proceedings in that case, however, are currently suspended. Until the court issues a ruling – and specifically one in favor of the Kyiv Metropolia – its formal status as affiliated with the ROC remains in place.

Affiliation down the chain

Law No. 3894-IX does not require DESS to prove the affiliation of each individual parish or monastery with the ROC. Article 5¹ of the Law "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations," as amended by Law No. 3894-IX, introduces so-called derivative affiliation. This applies when a religious organization is "affiliated with a religious organization that is affiliated with a foreign religious organization" whose activities are prohibited in Ukraine.

On July 17, 2025, DESS approved by Order No. N-107/11 a list of religious organizations belonging to the structure of the Kyiv Metropolia or connected with it. The list included 154 legal entities.

On September 16, 2025, the Kyiv Metropolia asked the court to prohibit DESS from issuing orders to those 154 organizations requiring them to eliminate signs of affiliation with the Metropolia. The application warned that otherwise separate proceedings could be launched against them and legal entities connected with the Metropolia could face termination.

On September 18, 2025, the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal denied the motion. On October 29, 2025, the Supreme Court upheld that refusal.

What the Kyiv Metropolia’s lawyers feared has already begun. The Holosiiv Hermitage is now a defendant in a separate DESS lawsuit. DESS ordered the Pochaiv Lavra to submit a decision “on the withdrawal of the Pochaiv Lavra from the structure of the Kyiv Metropolia of the UOC.” The Zaporizhzhia Eparchy received the same demand. There is little doubt that the Boryspil Eparchy will receive a similar order from DESS.

DESS is effectively offering eparchies and monasteries a choice: renounce the Kyiv Metropolia, and thereby avoid being designated as affiliated with the ROC and facing possible dissolution, loss of property, and other consequences.

That may allow them to retain their churches and other property, but from a spiritual perspective it would mean breaking with the Church.

Moreover, there is a strong possibility that such an eparchy would subsequently face efforts to integrate it into the OCU. Once the first step is taken, the next may follow.

Will courts wait for the Kyiv Metropolia ruling?

Can courts dissolve the Pochaiv Lavra, the Holosiiv Hermitage, the Zaporizhzhia and Boryspil eparchies, and eventually all 154 religious organizations belonging to the Kyiv Metropolia without waiting for a ruling on the Metropolia itself? Or will they wait for the main case to be resolved?

There is no answer yet.

One of the grounds for finding a monastery or eparchy affiliated is the Kyiv Metropolia’s existing legal status. It would therefore seem logical to settle that status first and only then rule on the derivative cases. The crucial proceeding here may not even be the lawsuit seeking the Metropolia’s dissolution, but rather its lawsuit seeking the annulment of Order No. N-127/11. It is that order – not a future dissolution ruling – that gives DESS the basis for establishing derivative affiliation.

This kind of legal logic has already appeared in court practice, including in the UOC’s current litigation with the state. On September 9, 2025, the Kyiv District Administrative Court opened proceedings in the Kyiv Metropolia’s lawsuit seeking to have DESS Order No. N-127/11 declared unlawful and annulled. On October 23, 2025, the court suspended consideration of that case, ruling that two other proceedings first had to be completed:

Case No. 320/40657/25 – seeking the annulment of earlier DESS orders, including Order No. N-101/11 of July 8, 2025, which identified signs of the Kyiv Metropolia’s affiliation with the ROC;
Case No. 320/45143/25 – seeking the annulment of Order P-1 of July 17, 2025, which required those signs to be eliminated.

There is no guarantee, however, that courts will follow the same logic in other cases. They may choose not to postpone rulings on eparchies and monasteries until the Kyiv Metropolia cases are resolved.

The law does not expressly require courts to wait until the Metropolia itself has been dissolved before terminating organizations within its structure. An eparchy or monastery can ask the court to suspend its dissolution case. Procedural law provides for mandatory suspension when a case cannot be decided until another case has been resolved. But whether such an impossibility exists is for the court itself to determine.

Moreover, DESS is relying on more than affiliation with the Kyiv Metropolia in its efforts to terminate UOC organizations.

A second route – no affiliation required

Paragraph 5 of Part 2 of Article 16 of the Law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations” provides another ground for terminating a religious organization – “the conviction of its authorized representatives for committing a crime against the foundations of Ukraine’s national security.”

In such a case, the state does not need to establish the organization’s affiliation with the ROC at all. And this mechanism has already been used in practice.

On September 9, 2025, the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal terminated the activities of the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Crimea. The basis was the conviction of its head under Articles 111-1 – “Collaboration Activities” – and 436-2 – “Justification or Recognition as Lawful of, Denial of the Armed Aggression of the Russian Federation Against Ukraine, or Glorification of Its Participants” – of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

Of course, the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Crimea is located in occupied territory, so the Ukrainian court’s ruling has little practical effect on it. But the precedent has been established.

On August 27, 2026, the court opened case No. 855/11/26 seeking to terminate the activities of the Administration of the Rovenky Eparchy. DESS is asking the court to dissolve the legal entity and transfer its non-religious property to the state. The stated basis is that its head was convicted under Article 111-2 of the Criminal Code – aiding the aggressor state.

Like the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Crimea, this eparchy is located predominantly in temporarily occupied territory.

But there is another noteworthy point.

Metropolitan Panteleimon (Povorozniuk), who was convicted in absentia of aiding the aggressor state, has not been the ruling hierarch of the Rovenky Eparchy for years. He headed it from 2013 to 2021 before becoming Metropolitan of Luhansk and Alchevsk. Yet the state register still lists him as head of the legal entity “Administration of the Rovenky Eparchy of the UOC.”

Perhaps, if the court dissolves the Rovenky Eparchy, it will suffer little practical harm, just like the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Crimea.

But first, this would establish another precedent – this time involving the UOC. And second, the same Metropolitan Panteleimon (Povorozniuk) is also listed as head of the legal entity “Mission of the UOC Synodal Department for Family Affairs.” DESS has already filed a similar lawsuit against that department.

In other words, the department is facing dissolution simply because the Kyiv Metropolia never formally updated the identity of its head in the state register.

There is another precedent – smaller in scale, but one in which a court ruling has already been issued.

On September 15, 2026, the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal ordered the termination of the “Kazan Icon of the Mother of God” community of the Horlivka Eparchy in the village of Yarova, Donetsk region.

The ruling was based on SBU materials concerning the involvement of the community’s rector, Archpriest Nikolai Zirka, in collaboration activities.

In 2022, the Industrialnyi District Court of Dnipro found him guilty and sentenced him to seven years in prison with confiscation of property.
Again, Yarova is in an active combat zone, and services are not being held there. But the precedent exists.

One may, of course, ask whether a religious organization should be held responsible for crimes committed by its officials. One may debate whether the conviction of a particular individual should constitute grounds for dissolving an entire religious organization and, in the broader sense, restricting freedom of religion.

But current Ukrainian legislation is written in such a way that a court can dissolve an entire eparchy and confiscate its non-religious property. It may be enough that a person who once served as its hierarch was convicted – even in absentia.

Conclusions

What can eparchies, monasteries, and parishes do to resist attempts to dissolve them?

First, they should “cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity” (2 Cor. 11:12). All legal irregularities need to be corrected. For example, information in the state register should be updated where individuals who no longer represent an organization are still listed as its heads.

Second, they should use every lawful means of defense available – in the courts and before other state authorities. One option is to seek assistance from the recently established Freedom of Conscience charitable foundation, which provides legal aid to UOC clergy.

Third, they should preserve unity and remain faithful to the Church even under the threat of legal dissolution. Some may be tempted to find a workaround – formally withdrawing from the Kyiv Metropolia while in practice remaining under the omophorion of His Beatitude Onuphry. Such attempts could result in even greater pressure and demands to join the OCU.