Skip to main content

Will the New Law in Montenegro on Religious Communities limit Freedom of Religion or Belief?

ECPM MEPs  expressed their concerns about the new law on religious communities that was adopted in Montenegro in the beginning of this year. In a statement, they call on the government of Montenegro to abide by and implement the recommendations of the Venice Commission   and to refrain from using violence against its citizens. It also asked the European Commission to closely monitor the performance of the government of Montenegro regarding freedom of religion, as it constitutes an essential element of the EU accession. 

But what has happened in Montenegro? Why does this new law raise concerns on the Freedom of Religion in Montenegro? Read here an analysis of my colleague Lefteris Kaloterakis. 

(By Lefteris Kaloterakis) 

On December 27, 2019, the Parliament of Montenegro adopted a law titled “Freedom of Religion or Belief and Legal Status of Religious Communities” , which came into effect on January 8, 2020. The fact that a law dealing with the legal recognition of all religious communities is enacted is a positive step for a country that aspires to be a member of the European Union. However, the way it was prepared and passed in Parliament raises concerns that the authorities attempt to show favouritism towards a certain religious entity.
Indeed, the Serbian Orthodox Church of Montenegro, the oldest religious institution in the country (its  seat is in Belgrade) is disapproving of this law. However, the government was eager to swiftly push it through parliament. The prime minister stated that the law “represents the final step on the historical path of cultural emancipation of Montenegro”.  The law was voted in a contentious atmosphere. It was passed at 3 am after 12 members of the opposition were taken into custody.
 
The law was also examined during its preparation by the European Commission for Democracy Through Law of the Council of Europe (the Venice Commission).  The Commission stated that the law is a “step forward” compared with previous versions but asked the government to proceed with consultations of the public and of the different religious communities noting that the consultations that had already taken place were limited.  The Venice Commission as well as several civil society actors raised several points of concern:

  The first purpose of the law is to regulate the registration and legal recognition of all religious communities in Montenegro. The new registration system is rather complicated and contradictory and  some of its provisions seem to discriminate against the Serbian Orthodox Church, while favouring the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, a religious entity that was formed recently and is not recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. For example, it asks churches that have a seat abroad (as is the case with the Serbian Orthodox Church of Montenegro) to follow a more complex path to registration. At the same time, the law states that registration is optional (Article 19). The Venice Commission welcomed the fact that the registration is optional.  This is a principle enshrined in their guidelines on the legal personality of religious or belief communities  – a religious institution should not be obliged to seek legal personality if it does not wish to do so. However, they expressed concern over the wording of article 25/3 of the law which refers to the registration of churches with their seat abroad. For them it is unclear whether the language used is an implicit pressure on the Serbian Orthodox Church to register.  Other recognized churches with their seat in Montenegro, will have to follow a simpler process and will be entered in the records of “existing religious communities”.

 The second point of contention is church estate and property. Unless clear evidence of ownership is supplied, the State will claim it. The Serbian Orthodox Church claims that this stipulation targets them as well and that the government of Montenegro intends to nationalize its property. On the other hand, the authorities maintain  that during the civil war, several properties were registered either to the Serbian Orthodox Church or to individual churches without a valid legal basis. The Venice Commission examined the arguments of both sides and underlined that the Montenegrin state is the one to decide to whom belongs what. However, they asked the authorities to ensure that a church institution will be allowed to use property that has been declared state property. Although the government gave verbal assurances to the Venice Commission delegation that this will be permitted, they failed to include adequate provisions in the text of the law.

  Finally, the law was criticized on two points regarding religious education. Firstly, while the right of parents to educate their children according to their beliefs is recognized, it has to be done with respect for the “psychological integrity of the child”(Art.52) and only up to age eleven. Once the child is twelve years old, the child decides for him/herself. Secondly, no religious community or group can establish a religious primary school (as that is compulsory and state-mandated)

I believe that the government of Montenegro must dispel any impression that they wish to treat unequally the Serbian Orthodox Church.  The government of a modern European country should not be showing bias in its relationships with religious groups. Side-lining a church that has deep historical roots in the country will not help Montenegro secure its place in western institutions.

As part of the accession negotiations with the EU, Montenegro will have to fulfil — among others — a specific benchmark related to strengthening the effective application and enforcement of human rights and alignment of its legal framework with the EU acquis and international human rights standards (Chapter 23 - Judiciary and fundamentalrights).  This includes effective protection of the right to property and freedom of religion. Of course, regulating religious institutions is a competence of Montenegro, but it should be done in an inclusive way. Excessive violence, vague definitions in the law and unwise statements may exacerbate anti – western feelings in the country.

Therefore, all recommendations issued by the Venice Commission for this law must be taken into account. This will probably mean amending the current law after an adequate and transparent consultation process with all stakeholders involved. The government must also refrain from using excessive violence. Finally, the European Commission needs to closely monitor the performance of the government of Montenegro regarding freedom of religion, as it constitutes an essential element of the EU Accession process. 

Photo by Ender Vatan on Unsplash

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Christmas Greeting

Corruption Scandal on the Sale of Schengen Visas in Malta discussed in the European Parliament

Ivan Grech Mintoff (leader of the ECPM-Member Party Alleanza Bidla) presented in the Maltese court  a transcript of the testimonies of several Libyans who claimed that in 2015, they bought an unknown number of humanitarian medical visas from an official in the Office of the of the Maltese Prime Minister. These medical visas are not supposed to be sold. Following an agreement between Malta and Libya, they are issued for free. The documents submitted in the court also claim that Schengen visas were illicitly sold at the Maltese Consulate in Tripoli over a period of 14 months (in 2013 and 2014). In this period, 88000 Schengen Visas (300 visas per day including Saturdays and Sundays) have been sold. This illegal scheme could have earned the perpetrators millions of euros.  Although the Consulate in Tripoli has closed, it is unclear if this practice has stopped or is still continuing via other countries or Malta up to today. On the 27th of June, ECPM invited Mr Mintoff to the European P

Campaign: In the Republic of Moldova "I DO NOT have the right of free speech!"

Together with Anca Bulica (Care for Europe), I wrote an article about the fact that with the proposal for the new anti-discrimination legislation in Moldova with as title: "Freedoms of Religion and Conscience under serious attack in the Republic of Moldova". You can read the article here . That this threat is serious (even before the acceptance of the proposed anti-discrimination law), is proven by the fact that Marian Vitalie is taken into court by the organization "Gender Doc-M" that defends the rights of sexual minorities in the Republic of Moldova. On August the 1st, the court issued a conclusion, by which he was banned from disclosing to the public while the charges against him have not been proven by the court yet.  Even in case the new law on anti-discrimination would not be accepted by the Moldovan parliament, it seems that already the freedom of expression is in quite danger in the Republic of Moldova. Therefore he started a campaign: "In the Rep