This is an unusual case, and one that has been handled in a particularly strange way, which is now before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Sister Elisabeth belonged to a religious community affiliated with the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church between 2011 and May 2017.
At that time, she left the monastery of her own free will.
According to canon law, she is no longer a nun and has resumed using her civil name, Zhanna K.
The Ukrainian Courts of Appeal has ruled that the former nun still has her domicile in her former monastic cell.
“Since February 2018, Zhanna K. has wanted to return to the monastery and live in her former cell. She has tried several times to enter, but the locks have been changed. She allegedly has no other place to live. Zhanna K. invoked her right before the Ukrainian courts to return to the monastic cell she occupied for eight years as Sister Elisabeth.”
She won her case before a Ukrainian Courts of Appeal on December 18, 2023.
The court ruled that “her cell constituted a home within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that the monastery must therefore allow her exercise her right to return to live in that home. The court ruled that the monastery must give Zhanna K. new keys to the monastery gate and the entrance door to the cells.”
Following this decision, the monastery appealed the case to the Ukrainian Supreme Court. “The monastery argues that the dispute falls within canon law rather than civil law.
It relies in particular on the principle of autonomy of religious organizations, protected by freedom of religion within the meaning of Article 9 of the European Convention.”
An Advisory Opinion Is Forthcoming
The Ukrainian Supreme Court, before ruling on the dispute, referred the case to the ECHR, through an advisory procedure. The Ukrainian Supreme Court asked the ECHR “whether the monastic cell of a former nun was protected as a home, on the one hand, and whether the civil courts had jurisdiction to rule on such a religious dispute, on the other.”
“The requested advisory opinion will be issued by the Grand Chamber, which is the most solemn formation of the ECHR. It will therefore have an impact on the recognition of the rights of religious communities throughout Europe. The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) has been authorized to intervene as a third party in the proceedings and filed its written observations on October 31, 2025.”
“These observations demonstrate that a monastic cell is not the home of a nun, especially after she has left the community, and that such a question falls under the internal organization of the community.”
The Ukrainian Courts of Appeal Is Mistaken
“Is the right to respect for one’s home, protected by Article 8 of the European Convention, applicable to a monastery? If so, the holder of that right must be the monastery itself, and not each individual nun. Indeed, the ECHR has already recognized that legal entities may be entitled to the right to respect for one’s home.”
“In any case, a monastic cell cannot be separated from the monastery as a whole. The organization of a monastery is communal, and nuns choose to take vows that involve, among other things, sharing all their property and renouncing a private ownership (the vow of poverty), refraining from founding a family (the vow of chastity), and obeying the superior of the congregation (the vow of obedience).”
Monastic cells “are regarded as places of retreat and prayer, not as personal dwellings. They are small and uniform. A nun cannot change the decoration or furniture in her cell. . . Nor does a nun have the right to invite people from outside the community into her cell. She usually takes her meals in common with the other nuns and not in her cell.”
The Principle of Autonomy
“This monastic reality has no secular equivalent. For this reason, a specific regime must be applied to it, that of freedom of religion, recognized in Article 9 of the European Convention.
This freedom gives religious organizations the right to respect for their autonomy, a principle enshrined in the ECHR.
Autonomy aims to ensure that religious organizations are ‘allowed to associate freely, without arbitrary State intervention.’”
Thus, religious communities are free to govern themselves and free to define "the criteria for membership," and therefore to "exclude existing members."
The State must accept "the right of such communities to react, in accordance with their own rules and interests, to any dissident movements emerging within them."
The ECHR also considers that "in the event of a disagreement over matters of doctrine or organization between a religious community and one of its members, the individual's freedom of religion is exercised through his freedom to leave the community."
Therefore, “if the monastic cell occupied by Zhanna K. was never her home, that cell cannot, a fortiori, be considered her home after she left the monastery and is no longer a nun.”
Forcing the monastery to house Zhanna K. would imply either reinstating her into monastic life as Sister Elizabeth or revising the entire functioning of the community to create a special place for her as a layperson.
Such an obligation would violate the monastery's right to respect for its autonomy.
The Ukrainian Courts of Appeal Exceeded the Limits of its Jurisdiction
“The principle of autonomy of religious organizations has consequences for the jurisdiction of civil courts in such a case. Civil courts may enforce the decisions of religious organizations, but they may not judge their merits.”
In essence, the examination by civil courts must be limited to verifying the absence of abuse on the part of the religious authorities.
“By granting a former nun the right to return to live in her cell against the monastery's decision, the Ukrainian Courts of Appeal has therefore overstepped their competence.”
This ruling by the Courts of Appeal was all the more unexpected given that Ukrainian law provides guarantees to monasteries regarding their freedom to organize and use their buildings.
“Furthermore, even adopting a broad interpretation of the right to housing, providing a cell to a nun does not create any civil right under Ukrainian law.”