Responsibility of religious organizations for the actions of their subordinate clergy in foreign countries and the Russian Federation: between canonical and secular law

In the article the author examines the legal and canonical aspects of the responsibility of churches and other religious organizations in the case of offenses committed by clergymen. The author analyzes the legal aspects of some significant decisions of the courts of the USA, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Italy, as well as the European Court of Human Rights concerning issues of subsidiary responsibility in the framework of the priest-bishop relationship. Common law countries use the same test for applying subsidiary liability, which includes two elements. It is argued that the positions of the courts of Canada and the United Kingdom differed from the Australian approach, the courts of which do not agree to broadly interpret the absence of a formalized labor relationship between priests and bishops and impose obligations on churches to pay compensation to victims if the offense was closely related to the actions (inaction) of the church leadership. In conclusion, the author points out that Russian legislation on liability in labor and civil law relations and its application differs from general law, and clergy guilty of violating the law are individually held accountable. In the case of a conviction by a court, the law provides for filing a claim against the convicted person for material compensation for the damage caused.