ECtHR: Belgium condemned for discriminating against Jehovah's Witnesses

Belgium was condemned for discriminating against Jehovah’s Witnesses. Failure to grant congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses exemption from property tax in the Brussels-Capital Region since 2018 was discriminatory

ECHR 122 (2022) 05.04.2022

In today’s Chamber judgment¹, in the case of Assemblée Chrétienne Des Témoins de Jéhovah d’Anderlecht and Others v. Belgium (application no. 20165/20) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read in conjunction with Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights and with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.

The case concerned congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses which complained of being denied exemption from payment of a property tax (précompte immobilier) in respect of properties in the Brussels-Capital Region used by them for religious worship. According to an order of 23 November 2017 enacted by the legislature of the Brussels-Capital Region, as of the 2018 fiscal year the exemption applied only to “recognised religions”, a category that did not include the applicant congregations.

The Court held that since the tax exemption in question was contingent on prior recognition, governed by rules that did not afford sufficient safeguards against discrimination, the difference in treatment to which the applicant congregations had been subjected had no reasonable and objective justification. It noted, among other points, that recognition was only possible on the initiative of the Minister of Justice and depended thereafter on the purely discretionary decision of the legislature. A system of this kind entailed an inherent risk of arbitrariness, and religious communities could not reasonably be expected, in order to claim entitlement to the tax exemption in issue, to submit to a process that was not based on minimum guarantees of fairness and did not guarantee an objective assessment of their claims.

Yet another legal win for Scientology in Germany

State of Baden-Württemberg loses in court against a Scientologist

EUToday has just reported about this new legal defeat of a German state when discriminating a Scientologist at the workplace for his beliefs. The EuToday newsportal published that “The State Administrative Court of Appeal for Baden-Württemberg dismissed the State´s appeal against a positive judgement won by a Scientologist before the Stuttgart Administrative Court”.

As reported, the statements in the headlines follow from two court decisions in Baden-Württemberg: “a judgement by the Administrative Court Stuttgart of 02.06.2020 (file no. 3 K 6690/19) and a recent decision of the State Administrative Court of Appeal for Baden-Württemberg of 04.03.2021 (file no. VGH 8 S 1886/20) which had dismissed the application of the state to grant their motion for leave to appeal”.

The state, represented by the State Air Traffic Security Agency, had been tipped off by the State Office for Protection of the Constitution about the Scientology membership of the plaintiff. The agency subsequently adjudicated the Scientologist “unreliable” basing this solely on his long-term religious membership, insinuating that he would thereby pursue illegitimate purposes. Consequently, despite his impeccable conduct, the Scientologist was prohibited from entering the security areas of any German airport. The exercise of his profession in his specialist airport related activities as an electrical engineer had factually become impossible, even though because of his professional skills, he had contributed to the security of airports across Germany and Europe in a very responsible fashion for decades.

SCIENTOLOGY MEMBERSHIP DOES NOT FORWARD ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL ENDEAVOURS – SCIENTOLOGISTS FOLLOW THE LAW.

Pointing to the Supreme Administrative Court case law on the security of air traffic, the first instance Administrative Court in Stuttgart had already confirmed the following to be factual with regards to the Scientologist: “That the individual conduct of the plaintiff was directed in any way towards the use of violence or that the result of his conduct was directed … to materially damage the protection of the free and democratic basic order, the existence and the security of the Federation and the States, is not evident.”

The Stuttgart Admin, in a crushing blow to what the German OPC offten infers, stated that, “no factual indicators are evident that the plaintiff pursues or supports or has pursued or supported any anti-constitutional endeavours in the meaning of … the Federal Law on the Office for Protection of the Constitution during the last ten years.”

EUToday continues to report that “That the Church of Scientology and their members respect the fundamental principles of the liberal-democracy as protected in the above law, not only follows from the legal obligations in the corporate statutes of the Church but also, inter alia, from the Church´s and its members´ worldwide commitment to human rights as has been evident throughout the past decades”.

The State Administrative Court of Appeal has now confirmed the above judgement as final. The blanket insinuation in the agency´s appeal that the plaintiff, by reason of his Scientology membership, would “not constantly be willing to respect the legal order” was rightfully rejected by the Appeal Court with the words: “That this can generally be presumed for members of Scientology, is not evident.” As required by the Church of Scientology from all its members, the plaintiff had always respected the law as evident from his impeccable conduct. The Appeal Court also came to the same conclusion as the first instance court with regards to the agency´s second absurd insinuation against the plaintiff and the Church alleging there was “willingness to use violence”. The Appeal Court also set the record straight on this point stating there is “nothing evident” to that effect, “neither for the plaintiff himself nor for the Scientology Organisation.”

Eric Roux, Vice President of the European Office of the Church of Scientology for Public Affairs and Human Rights, commented: “The above court findings have rightfully confirmed that the Church and its members are law abiding. They show that the past discriminatory pillorying against the Church and its membership in Germany by certain state security agencies are nothing but blatant human rights violations. The time is well past that such agencies must be subject to international human rights law standards as provided for in guarantees of international treaties of the UN, the OSCE and the EU Human Rights Convention so that they act to protect what they were established for and not to make a Swiss cheese out of the human rights principles that they were meant to protect in the first place.”

Source of the information: https://eutoday.net/news/security-defence/2021/state-of-baden-wurttemberg-loses-in-court-against-a-scientologist

Tai Ji Men and the Fiscal Justice against a spiritual movement in Taiwan

As European Federation for Freedom of Belief (FOB) and myself as a human rights lawyer have witnessed and have been dealing with cases of discrimination against religious and spiritual minorities and their members too.

More than once fiscal and tax issues have been used by governments to the detriment of some groups in order to stop their activities, for instance, when the groups where growing too fast or when they were disliked by the authorities.

At times these groups are denied the tax exempt status, if such a system is implemented in the country, or the status is revoked after being enjoyed for some time.

This has happened also in Western countries, not only outside Europe as someone may think.

Taiwan is now a full democracy whose present status stems from a complicate past; but after all, the times of martial law have gone since long.

Taiwan is a great country that I was glad to visit more than once, and where I had also the pleasure to teach a course on Human Rights, Minority Law and Freedom of Religion and Belief at Soochow University, back in 2012.

I was impressed by the cultural, religious and spiritual diversity of Taiwan where, in the same building, worship places of different religions can be found. One next to the other. Literally.

The tax case involving the Tai Ji Men community has lasted for far too long. In fact even though all the tax claims have been erased in Court, and no claim should exist anymore, however a tax claim for year 1992 is still maintained by the Tax Office despite the Court judgments in favour of Tai Ji Men, and which risks to damage Tai Ji Men, after having cost them millions Taiwanese dollars in trials costs.

The ongoing TJM case is unacceptable generally speaking, and also very difficult to understand from a legal point-of-view.

Basing on the legal principle of “Estoppel”, it cannot be argued or asserted that Tai Ji Men have to pay taxes for the disputed year 1992 as there should be no dispute at all, being this a clear contradiction, especially, if we take into account the other principle of “legitimate expectation” (or legal certainty) according to which those who act in good faith on the basis of law as it is or seems to be, should not be frustrated in their expectations.

As European Federation for Freedom of Belief (FOB) and I personally hope and wish that this case can be concluded in the best possible way, honouring Tai Ji Men and also honouring Taiwan’s democratic achievements and commitments for the safeguard of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Our expectation is that Taiwan will honour these principles and by complying with them will finally fully meet all legal expectations of Tai Ji Men in this matter.