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.
(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.
Comments
Post a Comment