Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 July 2008
In the last decade, the religious dimensions and significance of the European Union have been increasingly recognised. This paper sets out the role and regulation of religious associations within European law. Although it is often assumed that European competence does not touch on matters of religion, a jurisdictional separation of ‘economics’ and ‘religion’ has been increasingly hard to sustain. European law grants various privileges and exemptions to religious bodies. However, the dominant model to emerge is one of pluralism: distinctive substantive legal regimes applicable to religious bodies, and a distinctive participatory position within the governance of the European Union. However, the paper suggests that the pursuit of pluralism has not been entirely successful National diversity in this field coupled with the sheer complexity of achieving a reasonable balance of competing interests conspire to make it remarkably elusive. What is needed is a greater recognition of the right of States to adjust European legal requirements to accommodate the legitimate needs of the religious bodies within their jurisdiction and a renewed commitment to producing workable solutions in dialogue with religious associations.
1 The Forum website contains a list of participant religious organisations in the category of ‘other, civil society, NGOs and schools of thought’: http://www.europa.eu.int/futurum/forum_convention/organresults_502_en.cfm.Google Scholar
2 See e.g. Smith, Joan, ‘The EU is utterly Godless—let's keep it that way’, Independent, 23 January 2003.Google Scholar
3 In force I November 1993. See now the post-Amsterdam consolidated version of 10 November 1997/C 340/145–172. All article references in this paper are to the new numbering.Google Scholar
4 See his ‘Speech to the Churches’ of 14 April 1992. A Soul for Europe is composed of six members: Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community, Church and Society Commission of the Conference of European Churches, Orthodox Liaison Office, Conference of European Rabbis, European Humanist Federation, Muslim Council for Co-operation in Europe.Google Scholar
5 The section is headed by Dr Michael Weninger. See http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/policy_advisers/activities/dialogue_religions_humanisms/index_en.htmGoogle Scholar
6 See e.g. Altes, Edy Korthals, ‘What is it? Why do we need it? Where do we find it?’ in Jansen, Thomas (ed.) Reflections on European Identity, European Commission Forward Studies Unit Working Paper 1999.Google Scholar
7 See the discussion in the paper submitted to the Forum by Carlos del Ama and Emmanuel Paparella.Google Scholar
8 See Fossum, John Erik, ‘The European Union: In Search of an Identity’, European Journal of Political Theory, vol 2(3), 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 The abandonment—or at any rate refinement—of the ‘secularisation thesis’ to be replaced by a thesis of European ‘exceptionalism’ by sociologists of religion is particularly associated with Peter Berger and David Martin. For an account of European religion which takes as its guiding idea the mutation of memory, see Davie, Grace, Religion in Modern Europe (Oxford: OUP 2001).Google Scholar
10 See e.g. Boulton, Leyla, ‘Turkey banks on reforms to boost chances’, Financial Times 9 October 2002.Google Scholar
11 E.g. Germany (1949): ‘Conscious of their responsibility before God…’; Canada (1982): ‘Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law…’; South Africa (1996); ‘May God protect our people… God bless South Africa’.Google Scholar
12 Exceptionally, the Irish Constitution (1937) commences, ‘In the name of the most Holy Trinity, from whom is all authority and to whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and states must be referred. We, the people of Eire, humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord Jesus Christ …’ The relationship of the Sovereign to the Church of England in the United Kingdom could be argued to fulfil a similar role.Google Scholar
13 John Erik Fossum (op cit (note 8 above), fn 9) has commented on the fact that the word ‘religious’ in the English version of the Preamble to the Charter of Fundamental Rights appears in the French not as ‘religieuse’ but as the vaguer ‘spirituelle’, which he sees as evidence of a further unwillingness to recognise ‘deep diversity’. By contrast, once ‘religious’ got into the draft Constitution it appears also as ‘religieux’ in the French.Google Scholar
14 TEU, art 11(1), and EC, art 177(2). The use of human rights clauses in bilateral trade and co-operation agreements is also common. See generally the Policy on human rights and democratisation of the External Relations Directorate General.Google Scholar
15 For an overview, see Robbers, G (ed.), Law and State in the European Union, 1st edn (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1996) (2nd edn forthcoming, 2004).Google Scholar See also Ferrari, Silvio and Bradney, Anthony (eds.), Islam and European Legal Systems (Aldershot: Ashgate 2000).Google Scholar
16 Opinion 2/94 on Accession by the Community to the European Court of Human Rights [1996] ECR 1–1759. The ECHR is nonetheless recognised as having a special status within the European Union: TEU, art 6(2).Google Scholar
17 Case 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft [1970] ECR 1125; Case 4/73 Nold v Commission [1974] ECR 491; Case 44/79 Hauer v Land Rheinland-Pfalz [1979] ECR 3727; and subsequent case law.Google Scholar
18 Case 130/75 Prais v Council [1976] ECR 1589.Google Scholar
19 2000/C 364/01.Google Scholar
20 See also Charter of Fundamental Rights, arts 10(1), 12(1) and 21(1).Google Scholar
21 1997/C 340/133.Google Scholar
22 Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, 18 July 2003, CONV 850/03, art 51(3). This article was not in the first draft of the Constitution. The text of the Amsterdam Declaration was only included after pressure from the Roman Catholic Church and others.Google Scholar
23 Compare the answer given by the Council to the question asked by Watson, Graham MEP on 3 August 2001 regarding religious liberty in France (2001/C 81/154) with the answer given to James Nicholson MEP on 16 October 2000 concerning religious minorities in India and Pakistan (2001/C 163/57). These answers are entirely typical of both the Council and the Commission.Google Scholar
24 28 May 1979 1979/L 291/186. The Declaration states: ‘recognizing that the special status granted to Mount Athos, as guaranteed by article 105 of the Hellenic Constitution, is justified exclusively on grounds of a sprititual and religious nature, the Community will ensure that this status is taken into account in the application and subsequent preparation of provisions of Community law, in particular in relation to customs franchise privileges, tax exemptions and the right of establishment’.Google Scholar
25 2000/L 239/87.Google Scholar
26 1994/L 216/12 at 13.Google Scholar
27 C-84/94 United Kingdom v Council [1996] ECR 1–5755.Google Scholar
28 See generally Maher, Imelda, ‘A Traders' Charter? Free Movement of Goods and the Sunday Dilemma’ in Wilson, G and Rogowski, R (eds.) Challenges to European Legal Scholarship (London: Blackstone, 1996).Google Scholar
29 Case 145/88 Torfaen Borough Council v B & Q plc [1989] ECR 3851.Google Scholar
30 C-267 and C-268/91 Criminal Proceedings against Keck and Mithouard [1993] ECR 1–6097.Google Scholar
31 C-418/93 Semeraro Casa Uno Srl v Sindaco del Comune di Erbusco [1996] ECR 1–2975Google Scholar
32 Ibid., at para, 24.
33 C-159/90 SPUC v Grogan [1991] ECR 4685. Protocol No. 17 to the Treaty on European Union 1992 also sought to preserve the Irish position on abortion. OJ C 191, 94.Google Scholar
34 Case 41/74 Van Duyn v Home Office [1974] ECR 1337. But note the restrictions imposed on public policy regimes of prior authorisation for direct foreign investments in C-54/99 Association Eglise scientology de Paris v Prime Minister [2000] ECR 1–1335.Google Scholar
35 Case 196/87 Steymann v Staatssecretaris van Justitie [1988] ECR 6159.Google Scholar
36 Opinion of Darmon AG at para 16.Google Scholar
37 Judgment of the Court at para. 14.Google Scholar
38 See Case 196/87 Steymann v Staatssecretaris van Justitie [1988] ECR 6159 at para 9 of the judgment. On the facts, of course, this happened to work in the favour of the religious association.Google Scholar
39 1992/L 395/1Google Scholar
40 1993/L 74/74.Google Scholar
41 1999/L 278/1 at 508.Google Scholar
42 See Commission Decision 92/456/EEC concerning the updating of Annex I to Council Directive 71/305/EEC, 1992/L 257/33.Google Scholar
43 Written Question E-1583/01 by Anne Jensen (ELDR) to the Commission, 2001/C 340/240.Google Scholar
44 EC Treaty, art 17(2). New rights specifically attached to citizenship are limited to freedom of movement, voting rights at municipal and European elections, diplomatic protection in third countries, and a right of petition.Google Scholar
45 C-85/96 Maria Martinez Sala v Freistaat Bayern [1998] ECR 1–2691.Google Scholar
46 O'Leary, Siofra, ‘Putting Flesh on the Bones of EU Citizenship’, (1999) 24 EL Rev 68.Google Scholar
47 The reach of non-discrimination is expressed as ‘within the limits of the powers conferred by [this Treaty] upon the Community’ rather than ‘within the scope of application of this Treaty’.Google Scholar
48 The background to Article 13 EC and the difficulties surrounding its future impact are well explored in Bell, Mark, Anti-Discrimination Law and the European Union (Oxford: OUP 2002). Mark Bell identifies a tension between a limited ‘market integration’ model of social policy and a more ambitious ‘social citizenship’ model. On either account there will be overlaps of the religious and the economic; obviously, the latter model contains more potential for conflict.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49 See Alexy, Robert (tr. Rivers, Julian), A Theory of Constitutional Rights (Oxford: OUP 2002), pp 206–210.Google Scholar
50 See e.g. the critiques in Jason Coppel and Aidan O'Neill, ‘The European Court of Justice: taking rights seriously?’ (1992) 12 Legal Studies 227: de Búrca, Gráinne, ‘The Language of Rights and European Integration’ in Shaw, and More, (eds.), New Dynamics of European Integration (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995).Google Scholar
51 Directive 89/552/EEC (amended by Directive 97/36/EC), art 11(5), 1997/L 202/60.Google Scholar
52 Directive 89/104/EEC (First Trade Marks Directive), art 3(2)(b), 1989/L 40/1.Google Scholar
53 See e.g. Directive 2000/31/EC on e-commerce, 2000/L 178/1, art 3(4)(a)(i)–(iii).Google Scholar
54 2002/L 42/1, Annexe 1, paragraph 1.3.2.Google Scholar
55 2001/L 167/10, article 5(3)(g).Google Scholar
56 Directive 77/388/EEC 1977/L 145/1.Google Scholar
57 See Written Question E-1976/98 by Mather, Graham to the Commission, 1999/C 31/109. The latest Commission review of reduced VAT rates (22 October 2001) notes but does not comment on the request (at para. 47).Google Scholar
58 In the absence of any Europe-wide definition of ‘employment’, this is a result of domestic law conceptions. See also Written Question E-1482/01 by Glyn Ford to the Commission, 2001/C 364 E/136. ‘Worker’ is defined in European law more widely than ‘employee’ in domestic law, and as the Steymann case (note 35 above) indicates, clergy may be ‘workers’ for some purposes.Google Scholar
59 The European Office for Emergency Humanitarian Aid (ECHO) has over 200 non-governmental partners, including many church-based ones. See http://europa.eu.int/comm/echo/partners/index_fr.htm.Google Scholar
60 Criteria for acceptance as a partner are set out in Regulation 1257/1996, 1996/L 163/1. Article 7 provides: 1. Non-governmental organizations eligible for Community financing for the implementation of operations under this Regulation must meet the following criteria: (a) be non-profit-making autonomous organizations in a Member State of the Community under the laws in force in that Member State; (b) have their main headquarters in a Member State of the Community or in the third countries in receipt of Community aid. This headquarters must be the effective decision-making centre for all operations financed under this Regulation. Exceptionally, the headquarters may be in a third donor country. 2. When determining a non-governmental organization's suitability for Community funding, account shall be taken of the following factors: (a) its administrative and financial management capacities; (b) its technical and logistical capacity in relation to the planned operation; (c) its experience in the field of humanitarian aid; (d) the results of previous operations carried out by the organization concerned, and in particular those financed by the Community; (e) its readiness to take part, if need be, in the coordination system set up for a humanitarian operation; (f) its ability and readiness to work with humanitarian agencies and the basic communities in the third countries concerned; (g) its impartiality in the implementation of humanitarian aid; (h) where appropriate, its previous experience in the third country involved in the humanitarian operation concerned.Google Scholar
61 See Regulation 1347/2000, 2000/L 160/19, art 40.Google Scholar
62 Directive 95/46/EC, art 8(1)(2d).Google Scholar
63 Directive 89/967/EEC (amended by Directive 98/33/EC), art 2(1)(b).Google Scholar
64 1995/L 281/31.Google Scholar
65 Similar wording is used for implementation within the United Kingdom under the Data Protection Act 1998, s 4(3), and Sch 3.Google Scholar
66 1990/L 309/1.Google Scholar
67 The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995, SI 1995/731 (amended by the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) (Amendment) Regulations 1999, SI 1999/400, the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/3352, and the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2001, SI 2001/3830).Google Scholar
68 Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time, 1993/L 307/18.Google Scholar
69 For a critical discussion, see Calvert, Simon and Hart, Colin, ‘EU Employment Law and Religious Organisations’ (2002) 148 Law & Justice 4.Google Scholar
70 2000 OJC 177 pp. 42–46.Google Scholar
71 Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin.Google Scholar
72 Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. SI 2003/1660, in force 2 December 2003.Google Scholar
73 See the Explanatory Memorandum, paragraph 10. Unusually—but in my view correctly—the Memorandum assumes that ministers of religion generally are office-holders. Only if the appointment of a minister is accompanied by a lack of intention to create legal relations will the job be outside the scope of the Regulations.Google Scholar
74 See paragraph 24.Google Scholar
75 Equal Treatment (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003. SI 2003/1661, in force 1 December 2003.Google Scholar
76 This depends on whom you compare an active homosexual applicant with. The Equal Treatment (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, reg 3(2), simply states that'a comparison…with…another person…must be such that the relevant circumstances in the one case are the same, or not materially different, in the other’. Of course, that begs all the questions.Google Scholar
77 2002 OJ L 80, pp 29–34.Google Scholar
78 COM/97/0241. See also ‘Building a stronger partnership’, COM(2000) 11.Google Scholar
79 In 1997, a new budget line (B3–4101) had already been created to promote cooperation with NGOs and other voluntary sector organisations and to strengthen their capacity to engage in civil dialogue at European level. See also Written Question E-1193/01 by Robert Goebbels to the Commission. 2001/C 364 E/56.Google Scholar
80 1999/C 329/10.Google Scholar
81 COM(2001) 428, 2001/C 287/01.Google Scholar
83 COM(2002) 277 final (5 June 2002).Google Scholar
84 These include the Catholic European Study and Information Centre; Centre European Juif D'information; Church and Society Commission of the Commission of European Churches; Churches' Commission for Migrants in Europe; Comite Europeen Pour L'enseignement Catholique; European Humanist Federation; Europaeischer Kartellverband Christlicher Studentenverbaende; Federation of Catholic Family Associations in Europe; Federation of European Catholic Universities; International Association of Christian Counselling and Charitable Prison and Rehabilitation Ministries; International Catholic Migration Commission; International Federation of Catholic Parochial Youth Movements; Jeunesse Etudiante Catholique Internationale - Coordination Internationale - Mouvement Internationale D'etudiantes Catholiques.Google Scholar
85 Many of the CEC responses have been drafted in consultation with COMECE (Commission of (RC) Bishops' Conferences in the EU), APRODEV (Association of World Council of Churches-related Development Agencies in Europe), CCME (Churches' Commission for Migrants in Europe) and Eurodiaconia.Google Scholar
86 Article 5 EC. On the extent of ‘exclusive competence’, compare the views of A G Toth and J Steiner as set out in Craig and De Burca, European Union Law (3rd edn), pp 133–134.Google Scholar
87 On this application of subsidiarity, see the Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality attached to the Treaty of Amsterdam, especially paragraph 7.Google Scholar
88 See my essays, ‘From Toleration to Pluralism: Religious Liberty and Religious Establishment under the UK Human Rights Act 1998’ in Ahdar, Rex (ed) Law and Religion (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000), pp 133–161:Google Scholar and ‘Religious Liberty as a Collective Right’ in Lewis, Andrew and O'Dair, Richard (eds) Law and Religion (Oxford University Press, 2001), pp 227–246.Google Scholar
89 See Case 145/88 Torfaen Borough Council v B & Q plc [1989] ECR 3851.Google Scholar
90 This is amply evidenced by the sequence of references which followed Torfaen, seeking further clarification. See Craig, and Burca, De, European Union Law (3rd edn), p 645.Google Scholar