O nouă lege a cultelor stârnește vii dispute în Ungaria

11 Comments

1. UNIFORM DECLARATION and
   PETITION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW OF THE
   SIGNATORY CHURCHES FORFEITING THEIR RECOGNISED STATUS
   Recipients: Pál Schmitt, President of the Republic
   Victor Orbán, Prime Minister
   László Kövér, Speaker of the House
   László Szászfalvi, Under-Secretary of State
   Members of Parliament
   and the Constitutional Court of the Hungarian Republic
   Honourable Mr. President of the Republic, Prime Minister, Speaker of the House, Under-Secretary of
   State, Members of Parliament!
   Honourable Constitutional Court!
   A) INTRODUCTION
   We, the signatory denominations, jointly and uniformly intend to make our comments, objections, express
   our disappointment, dismay, concern and expectations and submit our petition to You as summarised below
   with respect to Act “C” of 2011 on the Right to the Freedom of Conscience and Religion and the Legal Status of
   Churches, Denominations and Religious Communities as adopted on 11th July 2011 and promulgated in no. 85. of
   the Hungarian Gazette of 19th July 2011 (hereinafter: new Ehtv.).
   We are testifying with respect and good conscience about the fact that during the recent 20-30 years besides
   working on the salvation of people, our Christian churches and congregations have served the entire Hungarian
   society and the common good via charity, social, cultural, educational, pedagogical, preventive and several other
   activities. We never abused the rights attached to our recognised status guaranteed by law. We have never had
   concern with the so-called “business church” abuses.
   We were dismayed to hear that in line with more than 250 other Christian churches and communities
   functioning honestly similarly to us, we were deprived of our recognised status with a stroke of the pen due to
   the adoption of the new law governing the churches. Thereby, the new Ehtv. undoubtedly enforces the
   suppression of the freedom of minority religions in striking collision with the norms of the European Court of
   Human Rights and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (hereinafter: OSCE).
   B) WE DEEM ACT “C” of 2011 ADOPTED on 11 TH JULY 2011 DISQUIETING and VIOLATING CONSTITUTIONAL and
   MORAL VALUES on the FOLLOWING GROUNDS:
   1. We deem that it violates the Constitution (Basic Law), since it contradicts:
   1.1. The basic principle of the separation of the state and the church, which is indispensably crucial in a
   state founded on the rule of law, set forth under the Constitution and stipulated under the Preamble
   and Para. (1) of Article 8 of the new Ehtv. as well as proclaimed nationally and internationally.
   1.2. the democratic and rule of law principle of the free exercise of religion set forth under the
   Constitution, the Preamble of the new Ehtv. as well as under the Universal Declaration of Human
   Rights and also declared by the European Union.
   2. Furthermore, the new Ehtv. also gives rise to ethical concerns by reason of the following:
   2.1. The new Ehtv. does not preclude, but creates the opportunity for “business,” corruption and money
   laundering with respect to the recognised churches and communities via extraordinarily extending
   the scope of rights of the churches to economic activities (see, Paras. (3) and (6)-(7) of Article 19,
   Paras. (4)-(5) of Article 20) and at the same time, it prescribes an extremely poor, ostensible and
   formal system of control pertaining merely to keeping the records (see, Paras. (1)-(2)-(3) of Article 21)
   and withdraws these churches and communities even from the controlling authority of the National
   Tax and Customs Office (the legal successor of the Tax and Financial Control Administration).
   Uniform Declaration and Petition for Constitutional Review of the Signatory Churches Forfeiting their Recognised Status 1 / 7
   2.2. The term of “registration according to separate law” under Para. (1) of Article 36 of the new Ehtv.
   is not unequivocal, which spreads confusion with respect to the legal succession of denominations
   forced to downgrade into associations, the stake of which is the preservation of their assets or
   their subjection to confiscation.
   2.3. The legislators gave unfair, ungrateful and eliminative answers to the members of denominations
   by depriving them of their recognised status, since their vast majority had voted the prevalent
   parliamentary majority confidence in 2010 and supported them to acquire two-thirds majority.
   Voters placed confidence in You so far as Your government is fair, lawful, democratic and respectful
   of acquired rights. The parliamentary majority shattered the confidence of the denomination
   members as voters by the unjustifiable and arbitrary repeal of their rights as members of religious
   communities, therefore, they violated the right to free exercise of minority religion within
   religious communities, which is unethical and simultaneously unconstitutional.
   C) JUSTIFICATION OF THE OBJECTIONS AND STATEMENTS ABOVE
   1. Concerning unconstitutionality
   1.1.A We beg to draw Your attention to the fact that the adopted new Ehtv. on the whole is in contradiction with
   the mandatory basic principle of the separation of the state and the church as stipulated both under the
   currently effective Constitution and the new Basic Law taking effect on 01. 01. 2012 as well as under Para. (1)
   of Article 8 therein. Namely, instead of codifying principles, rules and conditions and committing the
   enforcement of these to the trust of independent courts and public prosecutors (which would be sine qua non
   in a democracy), Parliament (the highest organ of state power) specifies directly under the act just some of
   the hundreds of churches and religious communities and thereby violates the principle of the separation of
   the state and the church laid down under the Constitution (the effective one and the new Basic Law) as well
   as under international law (EU, OSCE, Universal Declaration of Human Rights etc.). A parallel example would be
   if banking law specified 5-10 banks and deprived the others of their rights as banks by parliamentary votes. Or
   if business law specified certain companies and downgraded the others into e.g. private entrepreneurships.
   Wouldn’t these measures violate the principle of the separation of the state and the business-financial sector?
   Although, those areas certainly abound in numerous abuses. If legislation cannot resort to such measures in
   the business and financial sectors for constitutional reasons, it could not do so under the law governing the
   churches considering primarily that the principle of the separation of the state and the church is set forth
   under the Constitution and highlighted under Para. (1) of Article 8 of the new Ehtv. Notwithstanding, if the
   state does so (as it did in case of the new Ehtv.), then the new Ehtv. is unconstitutional, if it is not, then either
   the Constitution or the new Basic Law is null and void or neither of them is valid.
   1.1.B Furthermore, we beg to note that if Parliament (as a branch of state power) surpasses its competence of
   codifying principles, rules and conditions and lays a claim to making decisions in religious issues, thereby,
   it not only violates the Constitution, but also deprives the denomination appealing for recognition and
   rejected via a parliamentary decision of the jurisdiction of remedy. An appeal could be lodged against a
   dismissal by a court, but not against the subjective decision of Parliament. Therefore, under the new
   Ehtv. no legal redress is available, which also makes it unconstitutional.
   1.1.C The preposterousness of the registration procedure will be outlined in the supplement to this declaration
   (see, “SUPPLEMENT”!), but in a summary we note that if the application of a denomination for registration
   is not adjudged on grounds of the fulfilment of legal conditions (in the matter of which independent courts
   should have jurisdiction), but it is the discretion of the Minister and the votes of the actual Parliament that
   will be determining, then the applicant – despite the fulfilment of the conditions – cannot be assured that
   its application will be approved, since it shall be subject to the number of representatives sitting in
   Parliament at the time of voting and other subjective conditions, therefore, meeting the requirements
   stipulated under the act becomes utterly inconsequential! If the applicant fulfils all legal requirements and
   its application would be adjudicated by a court, not by Parliament, then as we formerly mentioned the court
   would be obligated to enter it in the register. This would entail legal security and predictability, which
   constitute the criteria of the rule of law in all cases. If it is not the fulfilment of exact legal requirements
   that is guiding the approval of such an application, but the (unpredictable) actual proportion of sitting
   representatives and their subjective decision, then this procedure is unpredictable, does not guarantee
   legal security, therefore, it is anti-democratic and consequently, unconstitutional!
   Uniform Declaration and Petition for Constitutional Review of the Signatory Churches Forfeiting their Recognised Status 2 / 7
   1.2.A We beg to draw Your kind attention to the fact that the new Ehtv. coerces to downgrade into
   associations hundreds of denominations registered before 1991 not having 1,000 members or those
   registered after 1991, which in compliance with the requirements of the new law had been engaged in
   primarily religious and denominational activities, while a great majority of them had performed public
   duties such as educational, social, charity, preventive and cultural etc. duties as secondary activities.
   Thereby, the new Ehtv. violates the constitutional principle of the free exercise of religion, since these
   denominations will in the future be able to function exclusively as associations, whereas regulations
   pertaining to associations do not regulate denominational activities such as the right to administer
   religious services, the right to the collection of donations (collecting box funds, donations from business
   and civil organisations etc.), the right to preaching the gospel publicly (in public spaces, educational
   institutions, prisons, hospitals, institutions for the disabled or the mentally handicapped etc.).
   Furthermore, regulations pertaining to associations do not specify the rights of priests, the labour law
   status of clergymen, educational opportunities for priests, opportunities for public duties and for the
   operation of public institutions, taxation rules and rights. Therefore, denominations which had been
   naturally and primarily engaged in religious activities, but requalified as associations via the forfeiture of
   the specified rights will be unable to legally pursue religious, scilicet, denominational activity pursuant
   to the regulations pertaining to associations, therefore, they will be discriminated against, paralysed
   and outlawed. This de facto verifies that the new Ehtv. violates the basic principle of the democratic rule
   of law set forth under the Basic Law, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European
   Union, therefore, it is de facto unconstitutional.
   1.2.B The new Ehtv. further violates the constitutional principle of the right to the free exercise of religion by
   forcing the unrecognised denominations to assimilate into the framework of another denomination in
   order to maintain their free exercise of religion. The denomination that will not own up to that course of
   action for reasons of conscience may opt either for cessation or becoming an association, neither of which
   guarantee the opportunity for free exercise of religion (see, 1.2.A above), which is equally unacceptable
   and conflicts with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
   2. Concerning ethical concerns:
   2.1.A We beg to note that contingent “business denominations” could have been identified by investigation
   ordered by the public prosecutor pursuant to the former Ehtv. To our knowledge, no such investigation had
   been instituted in re the organisations presumably abusing their recognised status as denominations,
   therefore, the termination of the recognised status of more than 250 Christian and other registered
   churches and communities pursuant to the new Ehtv. on such grounds seems to be unjustified and
   insidious.
   2.1.B By guaranteeing business-entrepreneurial activity for denominations and additionally introducing the
   scope and concept of “activities not qualifying as business-entrepreneurial activity” (see, Paras. (3), (6)-
   (7) of Article 19 and Paras. (4)-(5) of Article 20), the new Ehtv. not only establishes a new “ecclesiastical
   economic sector” as opposed the “lay (unreligious) economic sector,” but simultaneously grants it an
   unlawful economic competitive edge, since it withdraws the former one from the control of the National
   Tax and Customs Office (see, Paras. (1)-(2)-(3) of Article 21). By providing so, instead of terminating, the
   new Ehtv. legalises church “business” and opportunities for corruption and money laundering,
   furthermore, by channelling public funds into churches, it reinforces the interpenetration of the state
   and the church and on such grounds it extends the opportunities for corrupt practices, which conflicts
   with the intention of the legislator pronounced in declarations.
   To us, it is dismaying that prolonged and conscious elaboration of legislative intentions underlies this
   morally seriously disquieting, what’s more, unacceptable regulation.
   2.2 Para (1) of Article 36 of the new Ehtv. does not articulate explicitly whether the term of “registration
   under separate law” refers to statutes regulating associations, therefore, it gives rise to diverse
   interpretations in jurisdiction, thereby, it entangles the issue of legal succession in case of the
   denominations having forfeited their recognised status, which entails the severe risk of the loss of assets
   (confiscation) for them.
   Uniform Declaration and Petition for Constitutional Review of the Signatory Churches Forfeiting their Recognised Status 3 / 7
   2.3.A We are extremely disappointed, since the vast majority of the parishioners of denominations forfeiting
   their recognised status had contributed with their votes to setting up Parliament with a qualified majority
   of the parliamentary majority, whereas, the same parliamentary majority deprived significant masses of
   devout Christians, scilicet, their supporters retrospectively of their rights as members of denominations
   with a single stroke of the pen. We can’t consider this an honest and correct procedure.
   Thereby, the parliamentary majority did not only stamp on the confidence of voters as members of our
   religious communities by the arbitrary and retrospective withdrawal of the recognition of our status as
   churches, thereby, it has also violated the constitutional right to our free exercise of religion as religious
   communities, which is both unethical and unconstitutional.
   2.3.B Such immorality is further exacerbated by the fact that during drafting the new Ehtv. we received
   continual promises from Government for months insisting that “honestly functioning minor
   denominations have no reasons for fear, they won’t get a raw deal via the statute.” In view of the
   adopted new Ehtv. and our massive exclusion from the recognised status, we need to admit frankly that
   we have suffered a great disappointment with the credibility of Government. Our denominations were
   extremely sanctioned for no reasons. Consequently, in contradiction with the promises, minor
   denominations did get a raw deal.
   It is our conviction that the comments and objections above articulate the opinion and dismay of several times
   ten thousands of Hungarian Christians, therefore:
   We beg the Honourable Recipients as representatives of the different branches of state power to kindly
   terminate the unconstitutionality of Act “C” of 2011 on the Right to Freedom of Conscience and Religion and the
   Legal Status of Churches, Denominations and Religious Communities as well as its immoralities, its discrimination
   against minor denominations and religious communities and its conflict with the norms of OSCE, the European
   Union, The Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Organisation!
   Via our statement, we request the Constitutional Court to review the constitutionality of Act “C” of 2011!
   Given at Budapest, 10th August, 2011.
   Sincerely Yours,
   The signatory churches and their representatives below:
   APOSTOLI PÜNKÖSDI EGYHÁZ, SZIGETVÁR (Pentecostal Denomination)
   Pastor Zsolt Ginter
   ARATÁS TELJES EVANGÉLIUMI KERESZTÉNY EGYHÁZ (Christian Denomination)
   Representative Lajos Tóth
   BUDAPESTI AUTONÓM GYÜLEKEZET (Autonomous Congregation)
   Representatives Ervin Piszter, Tamás Görbitz and Ferenc Takács
   EVANGÉLIUMI SZOLNOKI GYÜLEKEZET EGYHÁZ (Denomination)
   Representative Péter Soós, pastor István Szabó
   ÉLET GYÜLEKEZETE, KAZINCBARCIKA (Congregation)
   Representatives pastor József Tamás and László Keszler
   Uniform Declaration and Petition for Constitutional Review of the Signatory Churches Forfeiting their Recognised Status 4 / 7
   IGAZSÁG OSZLOPA TELJESEVANGÉLIUMI KERESZTÉNY EGYHÁZ ÉLŐ KÖVEK GYÜLEKEZET (Christian
   Denomination)
   Representatives Sándor Bernáth and Ferenc Szemerédi
   JÁSZSÁGI GYÜLEKEZET, JÁSZBERÉNY (Congregation)
   Representative István Nagy
   JÉZUS MINDEN NEMZETÉRT KÖZÖSSÉG (Congregation)
   Pastor István Bogdán
   KERESZTÉNY EGYHÁZAK SZÖVETSÉGE (Denomination)
   Chairman Jenő Nagy
   KRISZTUS KEGYELME GYÜLEKEZET (Congregation)
   Pastor Jenő Nagy
   MAGYARORSZÁGI ANABAPTISTA MISSZIÓ, MAGYAR KERESZTÉNY MENNONITA EGYHÁZ (Denomination)
   Pastor Jeremiás Izsák-Bács
   MAGYARORSZÁGI EVANGÉLIUMI TESTVÉRKÖZÖSSÉG (Denomination)
   Pastor Gábor Iványi
   MEZŐKÖVESDI TELJESEVANGÉLIUMI KERESZTÉNY GYÜLEKEZET (Christian Congregation)
   Representatives Zsolt Gönczi and Zsolt Kispál
   OLAJFÁK GYÜLEKEZET (Congregation)
   Representatives Tibor Verebélyi and Zsolt Budai
   SZERETET HÍDJA TELJES EVANGÉLIUMI EGYHÁZ (Denomination)
   Pastor István Hajdu, Elders József Rusznyák and András Oláh
   SZERETET-KÖZÖSSÉG TELJES EVANGÉLIUMI EGYHÁZ (Denomination)
   Pastor Iván Folk
   ESZTERGOMI TELJES EVANGÉLIUMI KÖZÖSSÉG, ÚJSZÖVETSÉGI GYÜLEKEZET (New Testament Congregation)
   Representative Péter Törőcsik
   Recent Signatories :
   Gábor Iványi Pastor, Magyarországi Evangéliumi Testvérközösség (Hungarian Evangelical Congregation)
   Zoltán Balázs Lencse Pastor, Őskeresztény Apostoli Egyház Jászladányi Gyülekezete
   József Rózsás Pastor, Őskeresztény Apostoli Egyház Sátoraljaújhelyi Gyülekezete
   János Széles Pastor, Őskeresztény Apostoli Egyház Kisgyőri Gyülekezete
   Uniform Declaration and Petition for Constitutional Review of the Signatory Churches Forfeiting their Recognised Status 5 / 7
   SUPPLEMENT
   to Point 1.1.C of Part C) of the Declaration
   We consider the regulation concerning the registration of denominations expressly disquieting by reason of the
   following:
   Pursuant to Para. (1) of Article 9 and Para. (1) of Article 12 of Act 4 of 1990 on the Freedom of Conscience
   and Religion and on Churches (hereinafter: former Ehtv.), the registration of the denomination was adjudged via
   out-of-court proceedings by the County Court having jurisdiction or by the Metropolitan Court. The Court
   registered the denomination, if it met the criteria under Articles 8-10 of the former Ehtv. Pursuant to Article 11,
   the registration of the denomination could be rejected, if it did not fulfil the conditions under Article 8, or, if the
   founders did not meet the conditions under Articles 9-10. On the basis of the comparison of these rules, it can be
   unequivocally asserted that upon the registration of a denomination under the former Ehtv., the court had to
   examine the fulfilment primarily of administrative obligations (see, Articles 9-10) and from a legal point of view
   whether the religious activity was in conflict with the Constitution or other statute (Paras. (1)-(2) of Article 8).
   From the point of view of “religious life,” the court merely had to adjudge whether the members of the applicant
   shared the same articles of faith or whether they founded the denomination for the purpose of the exercise of
   religion, which could be obviously established on the basis of the joint signature of the necessary attendance
   sheet. Therefore, the fulfilment of the conditions necessary for the registration could be adjudicated by judges
   with legal qualifications. Furthermore, the former Ehtv. narrowed down the scope of action of the proceeding
   court by providing in its formerly mentioned Article 11 that the rejection of the registration of the denomination
   was admissible exclusively, if it did not fulfil Article 8 or the founders did not meet the conditions under Articles 9-
   10. We need to definitely note that the former Ehtv. by formulating primarily administrative rules for the
   foundation of denominations, it powerfully focused on the fulfilment of objective legal conditions by the
   denomination, but did not examine its faith, system, rites etc. In addition, it entrusted the examination to a legal
   forum, which was a guarantee of the rule of law considering that one of the spiritual bases of the lawful operation
   of the court consists in judicial independence. Consequently, the proceeding judge examined the fulfilment of the
   mostly administrative requirements disregarding political intentions. Thereby, the former Ehtv. guaranteed one of
   the most important criteria of the free exercise of religion: the equal conditions of the foundation of
   denominations.
   As opposed to this, the new Ehtv. expects not only the fulfilment of administrative requirements with
   respect to the foundation of denominations laid down under the specification of obligations, what is more, it does
   not entrust the examination of the fulfilment of the requirements to an independent forum, which is obvious on
   the basis of the order of the proceedings and the persons conducting the proceedings. Namely, pursuant to Paras.
   (1)-(2) of Article 14 of the new Ehtv. the application of the denomination for registration shall not be adjudged by
   an independent legal forum, scilicet, a court. Pursuant to Para. (4) of Article 11, the application shall be submitted
   to the Minister Responsible for Relations with the Churches, who shall table the application to Parliament
   pursuant to Para (1) of Article 16 in case the association fulfils the conditions set forth under Article 14. However,
   the Minister can by no means be considered to be an independent person, since he is a member of a governing
   Cabinet and is 100 p.c. politically prejudiced, therefore, the judgement of the application will be inevitably
   influenced by political motives or at least by dispositions. This fact in itself severely violates the constitutional
   principle of the freedom of religion, notwithstanding, if the examination would concern merely administrative
   conditions, that could narrow down the scope of political influence, since meeting the criterion concerning the
   number of members could hardly be ignored on political grounds. However, the criteria as we have mentioned
   are not restricted to administrative requirements. Namely, on the one hand Point a) of Para. (3) of Article 14
   stipulates that the applicant association should carry out religious activity, on the other hand Point b) provides
   that it should possess a confession of faith and rites incorporating the essence of its teaching. The examination of
   the former criterion could be acceptable in case the decision-maker is independent in view of the fact that that
   courts also used to draw the line between religious and other activities in several decisions. Whereas, Point b) of
   Para. (3) of Article 14 raises difficult theological questions, the subjection of these to political judgement in itself
   violates the constitutional principle of the right to the freedom of religion, furthermore, the examining person
   is not independent, but entirely politically influenced as we mentioned. In our view, it is unacceptable that a
   political leader, scilicet, a Minister should make a statement concerning what qualifies as the confession of
   faith or rite of a church, furthermore, whether the confession of faith and rite of an applicant incorporates the
   Uniform Declaration and Petition for Constitutional Review of the Signatory Churches Forfeiting their Recognised Status 6 / 7
   essence of its teachings, nonetheless, he is even entitled to make a decision whether to table the application to
   Parliament. This option entitles the political leader to reject the application on grounds which are indisputable.
   Namely, if the Minister rejects an application by arguing that the application does not circumscribe a confession
   of faith or rite or justifies the rejection by stating that the supplement of the application stipulated under Point a)
   of Para. (1) of Article 15 does not contain a confession of faith incorporating the essence of a teaching or it fails to
   summarise the main religious doctrines, on what grounds can the applicant refute this? These are purely
   theological issues and no political leader, neither Parliament, nor an independent Hungarian court should be
   competent to make decisions on these. Therefore, according to our opinion this should not be included in the
   regulation.
   In this context, we consider disquieting the regulation under Article 17 according to which the Minister may
   designate an expert pursuant to conditions specified under a separate statute to clarify whether the conditions
   related to religious activity pursuant to law are fulfilled, before he tables the application of the specific
   denomination to Parliament. On the one hand, in case of a dispute, exclusively one party, that is, the Minister can
   designate an expert, whereas, the applicant cannot, which severely violates the constitutional principle of
   equality before the law. On the other hand, it is not clear either, according to which separate statute can the
   expert be designated. Thirdly, it cannot be inferred from the quoted provision, on what issues can the expert
   make decisions (regarding that no expert is competent to clarify the existence of the condition under Point b) of
   Para. (3) of Article 14, since it is an “internal affair” of the applicant.)
   We also deem it disquieting that the establishment of the hazard to national security has become a matter
   of discretion, since in this case “no legal remedies are available,” either and the prevailing political elite may
   essentially establish independently concerning an applicant whether its functioning is hazardous from the point of
   view of national security. This is a further extremely flexible rule.
   Beyond these, if the applicant passes the first political screening, it will encounter the second one. Namely,
   if the applicant fulfils the legal conditions, its registration shall be subject to parliamentary votes, although the act
   does not specifically regulate this phase. Not a single section provides according to what kind of voting Parliament
   shall make a decision or whether it shall make a decision indeed, after the Minister has tabled the application of
   the church for registration pursuant to Para. (1) of Article 16 to Parliament.
   Uniform Declaration and Petition for Constitutional Review of the Signatory Churches Forfeiting their Recognised Status 7 / 7

2. nu vad sursa de unde este luata stirea! Ce agentie de presa o furnizeaza? puteti sa imi spuneti macar hotararea legislativa cu pricina?

Acest site folosește Akismet pentru a reduce spamul. Află cum sunt procesate datele comentariilor tale.