Article 17 : towards a wide open democratic dialogue of the European Union with conviction-based organisations
The dialogue of the European Union institutions with religious and non-religious belief-based organisations must be structured in accordance with democratic equality, a fundamental value and principle engraved in the Treaty on the Union. It must bring together on equal footing the various currents of convictions : at stake, EU’s social cohesion, civil peace and secular nature.
The borderlines of article 17
According to Article 17.3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) EU institutions are bound to maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with organisations of convictions.
Art 17. 1 states : «The Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States », thus recognising their existence. But what about informal organisations and associations under national law enjoying no special status ?
Art 17.2 states: «The Union equally respects the status under national law of philosophical and non-confessional organisations »
Art 17.3 states : « Recognising their identity and their specific contribution, the Union shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations » If « organisations » designate only the non-confessional organisations, EU institutions are bound to maintain dialogue with churches and non-confessional organisations only. Therefore they are not bound to maintain dialogue with other religions, religious associations and communities, European level religious groups or networks. They are not bound either to address the growing diversity inside of religions themselves.
How is openness handled ?
The dialogue chiefly consists in inviting every year and without transparency – mostly male – religious leaders and dignatories .The meetings are usually convened by the Commission at Parliament, Council and Commission Presidents level.The criteria for selecting whom they invite should be clarified. The Humanists in spite of insistent requests only got rare invitations .Yet this year the EU has instituted a parallel meeting with non-confessional organisations – and with secularist freemasons
The Commmission’s official line as publicised on the Bureau of European Policy Advisors (BEPA) website looks somewhat contradictory: « Open means that anyone who wishes to take part in the Dialogue can do so. It is not actually within the European Commission’s power to define – either on a national or European level – the relationship between the state and churches, religious communities and philosophical and non-confessional organisations. The European Commission therefore accepts as partners in the Dialogue all organisations that are recognised by the Member States as churches, religious communities or communities of conviction ».
This raises some questions. Why would participation in the dialogue be conditioned by a specific status under national law. How could enlarging the selection of partners amount to « define – either on a national or European level –the relationship between the State and churches, religious communities and philosophical and non-confessional organisations » ? Let us note that the EU is able to make out whether an organisation is or not a religious one
EU institutions should and can develop a wide open democratic dialogue
In a more and more multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-convictional Europe, EU institutions must develop a democratic dialogue open to diversity for representativity’s sake, with religious and non-religious belief-based bodies. ‘Democratic’ means absence of privileges -for instance for the churches- and equal treatment in compliance with article 9 (TEU). At stake social cohesion, civil peace and EU’s secular nature (see both preambles of the TEU and the Charter of fundamental rights).
Two approaches to dialogue may be explored..
Approach 1 : Art. 17.3 TFEU with reference to Art. 9 TEU
A first approach would be to extend the dialogue beyond the convictional organisations formally entitled to be partners under art 17.3. Would the extension be left to institutions’ arbitrary decisions ? It can lean on the principle of democratic equality, a fundamental value and a fundamental principle of the Union set out in the Charter of Fundamental rights and more concretely in art.9 of the Treaty on the EU: «In all its activities, the Union shall observe the principle of the equality of its citizens, who shall receive equal attention from its institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. ». Would not this principle apply to activities carried out under the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU ? Would there be an exemption for the Art.17 dialogue ? Explicit reference should be made to Art.9.
Approach 2 : possible reference to Art 17.3 TFEU and Art. 11.3 TEU
This approach would be based on both Art 17.3 TFEU and Art. 11.3 TEU. No doubt the churches would opt for Art.17.3 while other convictional entities (non-Christian religions, religious associations and communities and possibly non-confessional organisations would apply under Art. 11.3 which covers any kind of representative association -notably organisations of convictions- and civil society in general. Art. 11.3 is equally open to churches provided they admit that in a secular EU their place is in civil society and not in the institutional space.
* *
The European Network Church on the Move, EN RE would find it appropriate to seek a juridical advice from independent experts on the possibilities of a democratic wide open EU dialogue with the convictional organisations. It shares the EPPSP’s view that a political impulse is needed to develop such a dialogue and looks forward to a public debate on how to go ahead.