WRITTEN QUESTION E-2200/00 by Marco Cappato (TDI) to the Commission. Religious freedom in Greece.
Date: 2000-07-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU competence, Greece, freedom of religious beliefs, infringement of EU law

C 151 E/2

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.5.2001

At the same time the Commission is aware of the fact that the bathing water directive of 1976 is outdated,
both as regards the technical-scientific basis and the managerial approach. This is why the Commission
already in 1994 submitted a proposal for a review. However, consecutive Council Presidencies did not
discuss the proposal for several years, inter alia because one wanted to await the outcome of the political
discussion on the water framework directive. Thus the 1994 proposal became itself outdated.

The Commission has started work leading to a new bathing water quality Directive. Following the final
adoption of the water framework directive in September 2000, the Commission intends to develop the
new bathing water quality directive,
looking both at the latest technical and scientific facts and the
managerial approach. Development of the Commission proposal should follow the same open process that
proved so successful for the water framework directive, i.e. cooperation with all interested and involved
parties (such as Member States, regional and local authorities, the scientific community, tourism, water
users and, last but not least, consumer and environmental non-governmental organisations). The next step
foreseen is a Commission communication on bathing water before the end of 2000, opening a broad
consultation exercise. One of the key elements of this consultation will be a bathing water conference
foreseen during the Swedish Presidency. Based on the findings of this consultation exercise, the Commis-
sion will come forward with a proposal to the Parliament and the Council for a new bathing water quality
directive.

(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976.
(2) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991.

(2001/C 151 E/002)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2200/00

by Marco Cappato (TDI) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: Religious freedom in Greece

Chara Kalomiri, a Greek citizen, is involved in a legal case that raises grave concerns about respect for
religious freedom in Greece. After having been accused by the authorities on Mount Athos of directing,
from September 1994 to March 1995, a (cid:145)centre of practical psychological philosophy(cid:146) on the Chalcidice
Peninsula, she was initially convicted by the Greek courts in 1997 and then, after the Supreme Court had
quashed the sentence, convicted a second time after a retrial. The judges gave as grounds for their verdict
the fact that the (cid:145)Buddhist place of worship,
intended for meditation(cid:146) had not received the requisite
authorisation from the Ministry for Education and Religious Affairs, which authorisation is granted only
after hearing the opinion of the Orthodox hierarchy.

Does the Commission not consider that, as respect for religious freedom is a fundamental human right and
a principle common to all the Member States, urgent action should be taken pursuant to Articles 6 and 7
of the TEU and Article 13 of the TEC to prevent any infringement of human rights and fundamental
freedoms, and any discrimination on the grounds of religion, with particular reference to Greece?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Having examined the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question, the Commission considers that the action of the
Member State in question does not fall within the scope of Community law. The Court of Justice has
consistently refused to judge the respect of fundamental rights by the Member States when they are acting
outside the scope of Community law. Consequently, and regardless of whether or not a fundamental right
has been violated,
the Commission does not have jurisdiction in this case to open infringement
proceedings within the meaning of Article 226 (former Article 169) of the EC Treaty against Greece.

The Commission would also draw the Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention to the possibility that, after
exhausting the national avenues of appeal against the conviction, the citizen in question could bring a
case before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.