The pontificate of Leo XIV inherits a new judicial front in Europe. The Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR) has been denounced before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for the withdrawal of the pension from two former executives of the Vatican bank, a decision that, according to the plaintiffs, violates a fundamental right recognized by the European Convention on Human Rights.
The information has been published by the Italian newspaper Il Messaggero, which has had access to the judicial documentation.
The plaintiffs and the origin of the conflict
Those who have appealed to Strasbourg are Paolo Cipriani and Massimo Tulli, former managers of the IOR, who were convicted at the time by the Vatican court for mismanagement. Despite the conviction, both had the right—according to the internal regulations of the Vatican’s pension fund—to receive their retirement pension, although reduced by one third, as happens in most European legal systems.
However, the IOR abruptly suspended the payment of their pensions, which led Cipriani and Tulli to embark on a long judicial process within the Vatican system itself.
Two favorable rulings… and a final twist
In the first and second instance, the Vatican courts ruled in favor of the former employees, recognizing that the pension constituted an acquired right and ordering the IOR to restore its payment—with the corresponding reduction—as well as to cover the legal costs.
These rulings assumed a principle widely recognized in Italian and European law: the inalienability of the pension, except within the limits expressly provided by law.
However, the IOR systematically appealed all the resolutions until reaching the Vatican Court of Cassation. In April 2025, a panel of judges composed mostly of cardinals, presided over by Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, president of the Italian Episcopal Conference, completely overturned the previous rulings, ruling in favor of the Vatican bank.
A controversial ruling
According to the ruling signed by Zuppi—to which Il Messaggero had access—the worker’s pension does not necessarily have to be considered an acquired right, an assertion that represents a break with European legal tradition.
The ruling also introduces a new category by redefining the reduced pension as an «improper compensation,» and not as a consolidated right of the worker. This interpretation has generated strong criticism, occurring in a legal system where there is no clear separation of powers and where the Pope is, ultimately, the supreme judge.
The ruling was issued on April 10, 2025, just eleven days before the death of Pope Francis.
The appeal to Strasbourg
Faced with the impossibility of continuing to appeal within the Vatican legal system, Cipriani and Tulli turned to the European Court of Human Rights, denouncing that the IOR would have violated Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, relating to the protection of property.
The appellants argue that the Vatican bank also violated Article 28 of the internal regulations of the Vatican pension fund, which states that pensions cannot be assigned, seized, or confiscated, except to cover debts with the administration itself and always within the limit of one third of the amount.
A case with controversial precedents
The criminal process that led to the Vatican conviction of Cipriani and Tulli has been complex and controversial from the beginning. Both former executives were also tried by Italian justice in relation to alleged illicit movements of 23 million euros seized in 2010.
In that proceeding, the Rome Court acquitted them on appeal with the formula «because the act does not exist,» an acquittal that strongly contrasted with the outcome of the Vatican process and fueled criticism about the coherence and transparency of the Vatican judicial system.
A new front for the Vatican
The denunciation before the ECHR now opens a delicate scenario for the Vatican and for the pontificate of Leo XIV, which inherits a case with possible international consequences. If Strasbourg admits the appeal and rules against the IOR, the case could set a significant precedent regarding the compatibility of the Vatican legal system with European standards of fundamental rights.