Vatican faces ECHR review as former IOR officials contest pension suspensions after Cassation ruling, signaling renewed scrutiny of Vatican governance.
Newsroom (24/12/2025 Gaudium Press) The Vatican is confronting a new wave of international scrutiny over its own governance, after two former Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR) executives challenged the suspension of their pensions in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The case, centered on Paolo Cipriani and Massimo Tulli, spotlights a long-running saga of internal Vatican rulings, economic reform efforts, and the delicate balance between disciplinary justice and pension protections within the Holy See’s peculiar legal and financial framework.
A backstory of mismanagement, rulings, and a pivot in Vatican law
Cipriani and Tulli, former director and deputy director of the IOR, were found liable for substantial financial losses tied to investments made between 2010 and 2013. The IOR described the losses as “immediately harmful” and, in some cases, “illegitimate,” laying the groundwork for criminal proceedings in parallel to ecclesiastical and civil actions. In 2018, a Vatican civil judgment held the pair responsible for losses exceeding €40 million, setting a civil precedent within the Vatican’s own legal system.
Pension implications followed the disciplinary path. Vatican regulations allow for pension reductions of up to one third in cases of conviction, but do not allow full elimination solely on account of such convictions. Cipriani and Tulli initially challenged the suspension within Vatican tribunals and secured favorable rulings at the first and second instances, which ordered the IOR to reinstate their pensions at a reduced rate and to cover legal costs. Those early victories, however, were undone by the Vatican Court of Cassation in April, which ruled that pension payments could not be treated as an acquired right. In effect, the Cassation panel—largely composed of senior church officials and presided by Cardinal Matteo Zuppi—sided with the IOR and reversed the lower court decisions.
The mayhem of mixed jurisprudence inside the Vatican
The Cassation ruling marked a turning point. It diverged from the reasoning of Vatican lower courts, which had leaned on principles common in European pension systems, including Italian practice, where pensions can be reduced after a conviction but not entirely eliminated. The Cassation decision framed Vatican pension law more narrowly, asserting that pension benefits are not an “acquired right” under Vatican law. This shift effectively permitted the IOR to suspend pension payments altogether, even at a reduced rate, and signaled a broader movement within the Vatican to reinterpret financial protections in a way that aligns with disciplinary outcomes.
This development sits amid broader changes within Vatican governance. In 2023, amid a wider effort to reshape the Vatican’s governance and distance ecclesiastical structures from the city state’s judiciary, Pope Francis overhauled the Court of Cassation’s composition. He removed the link between the Vatican’s supreme civil and canonical courts’ judiciaries and installed Cardinal Kevin Farrell as court president, with Cardinals Matteo Zuppi, Mauro Gambetti, and Paolo Lojudice as judges, complemented by two Italian scholars as associate justices. Critics note that the majority of the court’s cardinal judges do not hold formal legal qualifications, raising questions about legal expertise within the highest echelons of Vatican justice.
From Vatican staterooms to Strasbourg
Following the Court of Cassation’s April 2025 ruling, Cipriani and Tulli pursued an international remedy. They filed an appeal with the ECHR, arguing that the Holy See’s actions violate its internal pension regulations and Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects property rights. The appeal comes even as the Vatican City State remains outside the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisdiction in the sense of binding adjudication, and the ECHR has previously declined to intervene in cases brought against the Vatican through member-state courts. Yet the petition threatens renewed, high-profile scrutiny of the Vatican City judiciary from Strasbourg.
This case sits against a broader backdrop of the Holy See’s hesitations and confrontations with European intergovernmental expectations. In 2021, the ECHR ruled in J.C. and Others v. Belgium that the Holy See possessed sovereign-immunity attributes that shielded it from direct jurisdiction in Belgian courts for clerical abuse claims filed there. The judgment underscored a principle: international law recognizes the Holy See as a sovereign actor with immunity that can limit direct legal accountability in certain fora. But it also framed the tribunal’s role in a nuanced way, emphasizing that immunity is not a blanket shield to escape all accountability.
The pension matter, however, treads a different line. It tests whether internal Vatican pension statutes—and their interpretation by Vatican courts—are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically the property-right protections of Article 1. Unlike the abuse case, where immunity blocked direct jurisdiction, pension disputes arise from within the Vatican’s own legal system, yet they implicate the broader European human-rights framework. The question before the ECHR, if it takes up the matter, is whether the Vatican’s pension regulations and their application create an unjust deprivation of property or breach the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, when the underlying disciplinary actions have already had repercussions within the IOR.
The evolving story of governance and accountability
The Cipriani-Tulli case is not simply a pension dispute; it is emblematic of the Vatican’s ongoing reckoning with governance, transparency, and accountability. The IOR—often described as the Vatican’s financial heartbeat—has faced sustained scrutiny since the sexual abuse scandals shone a harsh light on the Vatican’s financial and administrative structures. The Vatican has launched reforms aimed at improving oversight, strengthening internal controls, and aligning its practices with international norms. Yet the tension between disciplinary measures, financial protections, and the autonomy of Vatican legal decision-making continues to generate conflict, both inside Vatican City and in international forums.
The ECHR appeals—and the potential implications
If the ECHR takes up the Cipriani-Tulli petition, it could force the Vatican to confront questions about how its internal statutes interact with European human rights standards. The court’s ruling would have implications beyond pension rights; it could influence how the Vatican interprets its own statutes in the face of external scrutiny, particularly as it undertakes governance reforms and seeks to reassure international partners and markets about its financial reforms and rule-of-law commitments.
In the broader arc of Vatican-European legal relations, the pension dispute may foreshadow successive challenges to how the Holy See regulates its internal affairs in a way that resonates with international legal expectations. The stakes are not merely financial; they touch on the legitimacy and transparency of the Vatican’s governance framework at a moment when the Holy See is actively reconfiguring its judiciary and administrative hierarchies.
Conclusion
As Cipriani and Tulli press their case to Strasbourg, the Vatican stands at a crossroads. A decision from the ECHR could either validate the Vatican’s current interpretation of pension rights within its own statute framework or compel a recalibration toward stronger alignment with European human-rights standards. The outcome may influence how the Vatican structures its governance, administers its pension schemes, and communicates its reforms to a global audience watching closely for signs of greater accountability within one of the world’s oldest and most enigmatic institutions.
- Raju Hasmukh with files from The Pillar
Related Images:
