WRITTEN QUESTION E-0776/04 by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission. Violation of religious freedom in Greece.
Date: 2004-03-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, church-State relations, freedom of religious beliefs, job access, religious discrimination

C 88 E/532

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

How it intends to dissuade Germany 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

(29 April 2004)

The circumstances referred to by the Honourable Member have not previously been brought to the
Commission’s attention.

As regards the German Government’s refusal to grant entry visas to the leader of the Unification Church,
Mr Moon, and his wife, the Commission would point out that, under the provisions governing the issue of
uniform visas valid for all the Member States which have acceded to the Schengen Convention, each
Member State examines visa applications on the basis of a number of criteria set out in the Common
Consular Instructions. However, the decision to grant or refuse to grant a visa is left to the discretion of
each Member State. The Common Consular Instructions do not require the Member States to provide the
reasons for such refusals.

It is the Commission’s view that matters relating to the status of the Church of Scientology and other
religious communities in Germany are caught by the Declaration on the status of churches and non-
confessional organisations attached to the Amsterdam Treaty, according to which ‘the Union respects and
does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in
the Member States. The Union equally respects the status of philosophical and non-confessional
organisations.’

In addition, the Commission is empowered to intervene in respect of violations of fundamental rights,
including religious freedom, only where such violations take place within the framework of Community
law and its implementation.

In that connection, like all the Member States, since 2 December 2003 Germany has been obliged to apply
Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, which prohibits discrimination based on religion or
belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in the field of employment and occupation (1).

Within the framework of its examination of the application by the Member States of the aforementioned
Directive, the Commission has sent Germany a letter of formal notice concerning its failure to provide
notification of measures transposing this legislation into national law.

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

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

(2004/C 88 E/0545)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0776/04

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Violation of religious freedom in Greece

In view of the following:

(cid:1) Article 6 of the EU Treaty

(cid:1) Articles 10, 22 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU;

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/533

(cid:1) Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (in

particular Articles 9 and 14);

(cid:1) the International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 issued by the US Department of State;

and the fact that:

(cid:1) non-Orthodox groups in Greece are encountering administrative obstacles and legal restrictions when
practising their religion and leaders of some non-Orthodox religious groups claim that all the taxes
paid by religious organisations are discriminatory, since the government subsidises the Orthodox
Church, whilst other groups finance themselves;

(cid:1) various religious groups have reported difficulties in dealing with administrative matters and that the
privileges and legal prerogatives accorded to the Greek Orthodox Church are not extended to other
recognised religions;

(cid:1) members of Jehovah’s Witnesses have suffered harassment in the form of arbitrary identity checks,

difficulties in burying their dead and local officials’ opposition to their building churches;

(cid:1) other religious groups such as Mormons and foreign Jews have reported problems in renewing visas
for ministers and rabbis who are non-EU citizens, since the government does not have a workers’ visa
specifically for clerics;

(cid:1) non-Orthodox citizens encounter problems in gaining access to careers in the army, the police, the
fire brigade or the civil service owing to their religion; generally speaking only members of the
Orthodox Church can become army officers, which induces members of other faiths to declare that
they are Orthodox; there are also reports of pressure being put on Greek Orthodox military personnel
not to marry somebody of another faith in a non-Orthodox ceremony, otherwise they may be passed
over for promotion;

(cid:1) the Orthodox Church has published a list of religious practices and groups which are considered
sacrilegious and officials of the Orthodox Church have admitted that they refuse dialogue with
religious groups considered as prejudicial to practising members of the Orthodox Church and have
even advised Orthodox Greeks to shun adherents of such faiths.

Can the Commission say whether it is aware of these facts, whether it has given them due consideration
and assessed them and what conclusions it has reached?

Can the Commission also say whether it considers the actions described as an infringement of the
fundamental rights guaranteed in Articles 10, 22 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU
and contrary to Article 6 of the EU Treaty?

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

(29 April 2004)

The Honourable Member refers to a wide variety of circumstances or practices which, he claims, result in
violations of religious freedom in Greece. These circumstances and practices have not previously been
brought to the Commission’s attention.

The Commission’s subsequent evaluation of these circumstances and the initiatives it may take in that
connection will depend on whether they are covered by Community law.

C 88 E/534

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Some of the circumstances referred to are totally outside the scope of Community law and therefore the
Commission will not be able to take action on them. The refusal to grant a workers’ visa specifically for
clerics from third countries is one such case, since there are no Community rules governing the entry and
residence for work purposes of third-country nationals, and all decisions in that field are taken by the
Member States.

Some of the practices mentioned appear to be covered by the Declaration on the status of churches and
non-confessional organisations attached to the Amsterdam Treaty, under which the European Union
respects
religious communities and non-confessional
organisations in the Member States. This holds true for the administrative conditions associated with the
practice of religions other than Orthodoxy and for the taxes paid by religious organisations referred to by
the Honourable Member.

the status under national

law of churches,

The list of religious practices and groups considered sacrilegious by the Orthodox Church and the social
conduct to which it may give rise can affect relations between private individuals only, and as such no
further comment is required.

As regards the alleged discrimination against persons in gaining access to careers and receiving promotion
in the civil service, the Commission points out that Greece is obliged to apply Council Directive 2000/78/
EC of 27 November 2000, which prohibits discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or
sexual orientation in the field of employment and occupation (1). Application of this Directive has been
mandatory for all the Member States since 2 December 2003.

Within the framework of its evaluation of the application by the Member States of the aforementioned
Directive, the Commission sent Greece a letter of formal notice concerning its failure to give notification of
measures transposing the Directive into national law.

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

(2004/C 88 E/0546)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0786/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Police cooperation and human rights

Seeking to step up the fight against cross-border terrorism and organised crime, the Irish Presidency has
prioritised the achievement of greater collaboration between police, customs and security services in all
Member States.

Will the Commission guarantee that arrangements for cooperation between law enforcement services in
Member States respect international human rights standards and best practices? Does the Commission
intend to press for the inclusion of provisions for accountability so that the services concerned are able to
ensure complete protection of human rights?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

All arrangements for cooperation between law enforcement services set up by instruments adopted under
Title VI of the Treaty on the European Union are carefully considered with regard to their compatibility
with Article 6 of the Common Provisions of that Treaty.

The Commission has always been particularly mindful of the need to reconcile a policy of enhancing
security with full respect for fundamental rights and freedoms and the rule of law. Respect for the rule of
law and fundamental rights is an absolute requirement of
the legality of all public action. The
Commission’s mission is to promote this balance throughout the Union, where appropriate, by building
up the necessary legislative framework, in order to achieve the Union’s major objective of creating and
promoting an area of freedom, security and justice.