The Case of Metropolitan Onufriy: Constitutional and International Law in Focus

In early July 2025, it was reported that the President of Ukraine had signed a decree terminating the citizenship of Metropolitan Onufriy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, born Orest Berezovskyi.

The text of the decree and its legal justification were not made public. Meanwhile, the legal consequences of such a step are actively discussed in the public domain.

This analysis explores the legal nature of this decision and its potential consequences — both for Metropolitan Onufriy himself and for the Ukrainian legal system in general.

Loss of Citizenship ≠ Deprivation of Citizenship

The state has no legal authority to unilaterally initiate the termination of citizenship.

Ukrainian legislation recognizes only three grounds for the termination of citizenship (Article 17 of the Law “On Citizenship of Ukraine”):

1. Voluntary renunciation of citizenship;
2. Loss of citizenship due to acquisition of another;
3. Circumstances specified in international treaties.

It is important to emphasize: deprivation of citizenship at the initiative of the state contradicts Article 25 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which explicitly prohibits depriving a Ukrainian citizen of their citizenship.
Deprivation is a coercive act. Loss is merely the formalization of an already existing legal fact — and nothing more.

The state has no discretion to revoke citizenship based on political or moral criteria.

A Russian Passport: Does It Even Exist? And What If It Doesn’t?

As of now, there is no officially published evidence that Metropolitan Onufriy holds Russian citizenship.
If no valid Russian passport or other proof is presented, the loss of Ukrainian citizenship places him in a de jure stateless condition (apatrid).

This contradicts:

• Article 8 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (ratified by Ukraine), which prohibits depriving a person of citizenship if doing so would render them stateless;
• Article 7 of the European Convention on Nationality, which explicitly prohibits loss of citizenship ex lege (i.e., automatically or at the initiative of the state).

Under such conditions, Metropolitan Onufriy loses all rights associated with Ukrainian citizenship — including the right to legal protection, freedom of movement, access to social security, and others.

This constitutes a serious violation of the basic principles of the rule of law.

The Presidential Commission May Not Initiate Loss of Citizenship — Only Formalize It

The decision to terminate citizenship is prepared by the Commission on Citizenship under the President of Ukraine.

However, the Commission acts based on submissions from government agencies (e.g., law enforcement or migration authorities), which are expected to provide evidence, such as a valid foreign passport.

The problem is that these submissions are not subject to judicial verification before the decree is issued.

As a result, the decision is made without adversarial procedure and without involving the person concerned in the process.

Judicial Protection: Formal and Limited

The presidential decree can be appealed only to the Supreme Court of Ukraine.

However, this is a lengthy process that can take months or even years.

Meanwhile:

• The person is already stripped of constitutional rights during the appeal process;
• The Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine prohibits interim measures that would suspend the effect of a presidential decree.

“This creates a situation where a person has already lost constitutional rights but has not yet had an opportunity for effective legal remedy,” — notes Danilo Triasov.

Sanctions After Citizenship Termination: A Backdoor Pressure Tool

Danilo Triasov draws attention to a frequently used scheme:

1. A person is first stripped of Ukrainian citizenship;
2. Then, sanctions are applied against them as a “foreign national.”

In this way, the state circumvents the restrictions of the Law of Ukraine “On Sanctions”, which prohibits imposing sanctions on Ukrainian citizens without proper legal procedure.

“In practice, such precedents are increasingly common — particularly involving Ukrainian businessmen, politicians, public figures, and clergy. The state first strips these individuals of their Ukrainian citizenship, and only then applies sanctions — namely, personal special economic and other restrictive measures — not as Ukrainian citizens, since that would contradict the Law of Ukraine ‘On Sanctions’, but as private individuals,” – noted Triasov.

This approach undermines trust in the legal system and creates a dangerous precedent in which citizenship becomes not a protected legal status, but a tool of political pressure.