WRITTEN QUESTION E-0186/04 by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission. Infringement of religious freedom in Italy, Spain and Portugal.
Date: 2004-01-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, European neighbourhood policy, Italy, Portugal, Spain, application of EU law, church-State relations, freedom of religious beliefs, interest group

C 84 E/542

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

It should be noted that experiments (not funded under Community programmes) of the same type have
been launched and pursued without objections from the relevant authorities in other airports of the
European Union, for example Aéroport de Paris (France), Schiphol (the Netherlands), London City Airport
(United Kingdom).

The decision of the Greek authority concerns only the specifics of the s-Travel project. This decision

2.
does not have an impact on other research on the use of biometric technologies.

Since biometric data are personal data, any such research must take place in conformity with the data
protection legal requirements, in particular Directive 95/46/CE of the Parliament and of the Council of
24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on
the free movement of such data (2). Article 29 of that Directive created a Working Party (WP) in this area.
It is an independent EU advisory body composed of national supervisory authorities. The Working Party
has concluded that further work is necessary, especially in the context of travel security, and that in the
meantime the responsibility remains with the industry to develop biometric systems that are data
protection compliant.

Furthermore, in the Conclusions of the Council of Thessaloniki, Members States have confirmed the need
for a coherent approach in the EU on biometric identifiers and on biometrics data for travel documents,
and invited the Commission to prepare proposals (currently underway). In this context, research projects,
carried out in full conformity with the legal framework, can contribute useful information and data.

The Commission will continue to work with Member States on biometric issues as these technologies have
a tremendous potential in increasing the security of European citizens. This will be done in close co-
operation with the Data Protection Authorities of Member States.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2003/wp80_en.pdf
(2) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.

(2004/C 84 E/0619)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0186/04

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Infringement of religious freedom in Italy, Spain and Portugal

Given the provisions contained in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights with regard to religious freedom
and cultural and religious diversity, and Article 6(1) and (2) of the TEU, and the fact that the International
Report on Religious Freedom drawn up annually by the US State Department contains the following
details in its 2003 edition:

(cid:1) The 1984 Concordat between the Italian Government and the Catholic Church grants the latter
privileges including the selection of state-paid teachers who provide religious instruction in public
schools, which other confessions do not enjoy;

(cid:1) ‘The Catholic faith is not a state religion, [but] its role as a dominant religion gives rise to problems’,
one area of conflict being that when certain Italian Catholic politicians joined the Pope in demanding
that the European Constitution include an explicit recognition of Europe’s Christian heritage; in January
2002 the Pope called on Italian lawyers to boycott divorce cases, and in June 2002, the Italian
Parliament adopted legislation, with Vatican approval, banning the use of donated sperm for artificial
insemination purposes;

(cid:1) The Spanish Government provides little assistance to Protestant and Muslim leaders for public and
religious education; likewise, there have been cases in which certain officials have refused permission
to Muslim spiritual leaders to provide religious services in prisons, although this is habitually granted
to Catholic clergy;

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/543

(cid:1) In Portugal, the Church of Scientology cannot appeal to the Law on Religious Freedom of 2001,
because that law demands that any church must have been established in Portugal for 30 years, and
have been internationally recognised for 60 years.

Is the Commission aware of the facts set out above,

(cid:1) and, if it has considered and assessed them, what conclusions has it reached?

(cid:1) does the Commission believe that the facts set out are incompatible with the TEU, particularly as

regards the respect of fundamental rights demanded by Article 6?

(cid:1) does the Commission believe that the Concordat between Italy and the Holy See is incompatible with
taken ‘all appropriate steps to eliminate the

the TEC, given that

Italy has not

Article 307 of
incompatibilities’?

(cid:1) finally, does the Commission not believe that the instances denounced in the US report violate the

rights guaranteed in Articles 10 and 22 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

As suggested in the report referred to by the Honourable Member, the laws of Member States may, under
certain circumstances, attribute a particular status to certain churches. To the extent of the knowledge of
the Commission this does not constitute an infringement of either national or of EU law. The Commission
draws moreover the attention of the Honourable Member to declaration No 11 annexed to the Treaty of
Amsterdam which states that ‘the EU respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of
churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States’. This provision has now been
taken up by the article I-51 of the draft Constitution submitted by the European Convention to the present
Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC).

(2004/C 84 E/0620)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0189/04

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Tunisian regime’s repressive measures targeting human rights activists

According to various sources, since the beginning of January there has been an upsurge in acts of violence
and intimidation against human rights activists by the Tunisian regime. On 3 January, Hammad Ali
Bedoui, a member of the National Council for Liberties in Tunisia (CNLT) was placed under house arrest
despite being in possession of a valid passport and Schengen visa. That same day, a huge deployment of
police officers prevented the General Assembly of the International Association for the Support of Political
Prisoners (AISPP) from taking place. On 5 January, Sihem Bensedrine, a journalist and member of the
CNLT, was brutally attacked as she was returning to her home, which is also the headquarters of the
CNLT. Since the beginning of the year, the building has been subject to heightened, 24-hour surveillance,
which requires the constant presence of five plain-clothes police officers. Furthermore, according to the
Yemeni Consul in Tunisia, the Tunisian authorities exerted extreme pressure on the Yemeni authorities not
to grant visas to Mokhtar Trifi, the president of the Tunisian Human Rights League (LTDH), Khedija Cherif,
the vice-president of the Tunisian Association of Democratic Women (ATFD) and Alya Cherif Chammari, a
member of the board of Collectif 95 Maghreb Egalité and the Tunisian Centre for the Independence of the
Intergovernmental Conference on
Judicial System, who had been invited to attend the Regional
Democracy, Human Rights and the Role of the International Criminal Court, held in Sanaa from 10 to
12 January 2004. The event was organised, under the aegis of the Presidency of the European Union, by
the Yemeni Government and the NGO ‘No Peace Without Justice’ and sponsored by the Commission, the
governments of Canada, France, Germany,
the United Kingdom and
Switzerland and the UNDP.

the Netherlands,

Ireland,

Italy,