# CE2004088EN.01052902.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/529 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/529

---

(2004/C 88 E/0543)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0772/04

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Violation of religious freedom in Austria

Subject:

In view of the following:

| — | Article 6 of the EU Treaty |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 6 of the EU Treaty

| — | Articles 10, 22 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Articles 10, 22 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU;

| — | Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (in particular Articles 9 and 14); |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (in particular Articles 9 and 14);

| — | the International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 issued by the US Department of State; |
| --- | --- |

—

the International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 issued by the US Department of State;

and the fact that:

| — | The Austrian Evangelical Alliance, the umbrella organization for Christian organisations not recognised in that country, has reported some delays in obtaining visas for religious workers; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Austrian Evangelical Alliance, the umbrella organization for Christian organisations not recognised in that country, has reported some delays in obtaining visas for religious workers;

| — | Members of Jehovah's Witnesses have been unable to obtain a visa for a Tagalog speaker to minister to their Filipino community; |
| --- | --- |

—

Members of Jehovah's Witnesses have been unable to obtain a visa for a Tagalog speaker to minister to their Filipino community;

| — | the Law on the Status of Religious Confessional Communities allowed twelve recognised religious societies to retain their status, but imposed new criteria on other religious groups that seek to achieve this status; numerous religious groups not recognised by the Government, as well as some religious law experts, have complained that the law's additional criteria for recognition as a religious society obstruct claims to recognition and formalise a second-class status for non-recognised groups. Some experts have questioned the 1998 law's constitutionality; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Law on the Status of Religious Confessional Communities allowed twelve recognised religious societies to retain their status, but imposed new criteria on other religious groups that seek to achieve this status; numerous religious groups not recognised by the Government, as well as some religious law experts, have complained that the law's additional criteria for recognition as a religious society obstruct claims to recognition and formalise a second-class status for non-recognised groups. Some experts have questioned the 1998 law's constitutionality;

| — | furthermore, various Austrian provinces funded offices that provided information on sects and cults; the website of the Family Office of the Government of Lower Austria included a presentation that negatively characterised many religious groups. The presentation included the Jehovah's Witnesses, despite its status as a confessional community. |
| --- | --- |

—

furthermore, various Austrian provinces funded offices that provided information on sects and cults; the website of the Family Office of the Government of Lower Austria included a presentation that negatively characterised many religious groups. The presentation included the Jehovah's Witnesses, despite its status as a confessional community.

Can the Commission say whether it is aware of these facts?

Can the Commission also say whether it considers the actions described as an infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Articles 10 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and that they therefore affect the essence of the rights, which are explicitly protected by Article 52 of the Charter?

Whether it also considers that these actions are contrary to Article 6 of the EU Treaty and therefore the principles common to all the Member States as regards respect for human and fundamental rights?

How it intends to dissuade Austria from carrying out such actions against religious freedom?

If it does not explicitly condemn these actions, on what legal principles it bases its attitude?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

(28 April 2004)

As regards the Austrian authorities' refusal to grant an entry visa to certain religious workers, the Commission would point out that, on the basis of the provisions governing the issue of uniform visas valid for the territory of the states which are parties to the Schengen Convention, each Member State examines visa applications on the basis of various criteria which are indicated in the Common Consular Instructions. However, the decision to grant the said visa or not is taken at the discretion of each Member State. The Common Consular Instructions do not oblige Member States to justify refusals to grant visas.

As regards the granting of specific work permits for religious workers from third countries, the Commission would point out that at present there are no Community rules on entry and residence for work purposes for nationals of third countries, and that all decisions in this field are a matter for the Member States.

In addition, the Commission has no remit to intervene in the event of violations of fundamental rights, including religious freedom, unless such violations take place within the framework of Community law and its implementation.

Lastly, if an individual believes that his fundamental rights have been violated, he can take proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights after exhausting all domestic legal remedies.

---