Court imposes night house arrest on Archimandrite Theognost
The clergyman of the UOC will be able to conduct services for Holy Week and Easter.
On April 18, 2025, a court hearing took place at the Boryspil court regarding the case of the rector of the St. Michael Church in the village of Protsiv, Archimandrite Theognost (Yurash). This was reported by the clergyman's lawyer Nikita Chekman.
“During the consideration of the petition, nighttime house arrest was applied. The defense was able to prove the necessity for the clergyman to conduct worship services. The application of nighttime house arrest will fully ensure the fulfillment of the archimandrite's direct duties as a clergyman and dean of the Boryspil district,” noted the lawyer.
Thus, the archimandrite will be able to conduct the services of Holy Week and Easter.
The lawyer thanked everyone for their attention and prayers, emphasizing that the court made a fair decision that will allow Archimandrite Theognost to fulfill his priestly duties.
Recall that on April 17, 2025, Great Thursday, police officers handed Archimandrite Theognost (Yurash) a petition for the application of a preventive measure in the form of round-the-clock house arrest. It is noteworthy that the address specified in the petition is located at a significant distance from the church where Father Theognost conducts worship services.
The defense notes that the criminal proceedings may be related to a property dispute between religious organizations. It is noteworthy that it was after the legal decision made by the UOC community regarding the alienation of property that representatives of the OCU announced the "transfer" of the parish and later filed a lawsuit to declare the alienation agreement invalid. Observers point out that the actions of law enforcement in this case align with the interests of one of the parties in the religious conflict.
Earlier, the UOJ reported that Archimandrite Theognost was charged under two articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: misappropriation of property through abuse of office and official forgery. The defense categorically rejects these accusations, asserting that the decision to alienate the property was made lawfully by the general assembly of the religious community.
The UOJ continues to monitor the situation's development.
