WRITTEN QUESTION E-0772/04 by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission. Violation of religious freedom in Austria.
Date: 2004-03-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, admission of aliens, church-State relations, freedom of religious beliefs, religious discrimination

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/529

(2004/C 88 E/0542)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0760/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Implementation of the financial services action plan (FSAP) in the new Member States

Does the Commission envisage flanking measures for implementing the financial services action plan in
the accession countries, which were basically not involved in drafting the main directives introduced by
the FSAP?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

The measures of the Financial Services Action Plan (FSAP) which have an implementation deadline before
1 May 2004 will form part of the ‘acquis’ which all Acceding Countries will need to take over and
implement from the date of accession.

Where implementation deadlines of FSAP measures are later than May 2004, the later deadline will also
apply to Acceding Countries. To be fully informed about these measures, delegates from the Acceding
Countries have been included as observers in all relevant preparatory and regulatory institutional
committees over the last year (2003).

The Commission recalls that the Act of Accession foresees transitional measures (cid:1) limited in scope and
time (cid:1) for specific Directives in the financial services sector. These transitional measures apply to the local
market;
it will not be possible to benefit from direct access to the European Internal Market while
complying with less strict regulations. All transitional measures will end by the end of 2007 at the latest.
The measures concern: the minimum capital requirement for co-operative credit institutions under the
Banking Directive (1) (involving Cyprus, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia); and the Deposit Guarantee and
Investor Compensation Schemes (2) (involving Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia).

Finally, the Commission has for some time maintained an intensive dialogue with Acceding Countries in
the field of financial services, notably by means of peer reviews carried out by experts from the EU15. This
has led to recommendations and action plans being drawn up by the Acceding Countries to ensure
effective implementation of the ‘acquis’ in this field, including FSAP measures already adopted.

(1) Directive 2000/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 relating to the taking up and pursuit

of the business of credit institutions, OJ L 126, 26.5.2000.

(2) Directive 94/19/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes, OJ L 135,

31.5.1994.

(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

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;

C 88 E/530

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

(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) 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;

(cid:1) Members of Jehovah’s Witnesses have been unable to obtain a visa for a Tagalog speaker to minister

to their Filipino community;

(cid:1) 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;

(cid:1) 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)

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.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/531

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.

(2004/C 88 E/0544)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0775/04

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Violation of religious freedom in Germany

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;

(cid:1) 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) the German government does not recognise the Church of Scientology as a religion and its
considering the church as a potential threat to democratic order has led to job and commercial
discrimination against its members in both the public and private sectors;

(cid:1) the government has refused to grant visitors’ visas to the leaders of the Unification Church, the

Reverend Sun Myung Moon and his wife Hak Ja Har Moon;

(cid:1) the governments of Bavaria and Hamburg have proposed new measures to restrict the activities of the
Church of Scientology and the Lutheran Church has continued its information campaign against it and
other alleged ‘cults’;

(cid:1) several states have published pamphlets detailing the ideology and practices of minority religions and
some of the latter fear that inclusion in a report on dangerous movements or cults might damage their
reputation; these actions have helped to perpetuate negative public attitudes towards members of
minority religions;

(cid:1) the International Religious Freedom Report

for 2003 expresses concern at the infringement of
individual rights on grounds of religious affiliation and at potential discrimination on the international
employment market as a result of foreign firms being selected on the basis of possible affiliation with
Scientology.

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 regarding respect for human and fundamental rights?