1

Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1216

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1216

Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1217

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1217

Notice: Undefined index: et_template in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1218

RUSSIA sanctioned by the European Court for detaining a Scientologist

Russia sanctioned for detaining a Scientologist

The European Court of Human Rights’ Kuropyatnik decision is a clear message to Russian authorities: stop persecuting Scientology.

By Massimo Introvigne

Bitter Winter (10.10.2021) – https://bit.ly/3lqyug6 – There is nothing new when Russia loses freedom of religion or belief (FORB) cases at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, and there is unfortunately also nothing new when it ignores the decisions and goes on with its anti-FORB policies, Just ask the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

However, there is something new in Kuropyatnik v. Russia, a case decided on September 28, 2021, and now widely commented by legal scholars. Against a vigorous but ultimately unsuccessful defense by Russian representatives, the ECHR stated that the detention of a Scientologist for the mere fact of being active in his religion was unlawful.

On October 13, 2010, Vladimir Leonidovich Kuropyatnik, at that time well-known as a Scientologist, took a flight back from Khanty-Mansiysk, in Western Siberia, to Moscow. When he landed at Vuknovo Airport, he was intercepted and taken to the local police station for questioning. There, he was interrogated for more than one hour about his activities in the Church of Scientology.

Kuropyatnik learned that his name had been included in the “Surveillance Database” (Сторожевой контроль), a police database used to track movements across Russia of individuals allegedly involved in “extremist” activities. Whenever a person included in the database purchases a train or plane ticket, the police is notified. Scientology’s material was, and is, considered “extremist” in Russia, a country that has been repeatedly censored internationally for its cavalier use of the label “extremism” and for “inventing extremists” to discriminate against religious minorities.

Kuropyatnik believed that his detention had been unlawful, and filed a complaint with the Solntsevskiy District Court in Moscow. The complaint was dismissed by the District Court on March 2, 2011, and the decision was upheld by the Moscow City Court. The judges concluded that the police had acted in accordance with the law, and that Kuropyatnik had followed the police officers voluntarily.

Kuropyatnik then challenged his inclusion in the Surveillance Database, and again his case was dismissed by the Moscow City Court on September 16, 2011, on the ground that the issue had been solved in the meantime by deleting his name from the database. Although Kuropyatnik had sought a decision that registering him in the database had been illegal when it was done, the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the decision on December 7, 2011.

Kuropyatnik then moved to submit the case to the ECHR. In contrast to Russian courts, which produced four judgements in one year, the ECHR took nine years to come to a decision, which is usual in Strasbourg but sometimes makes its rulings less effective. At any rate, it found in favor of Kuropyatnik.

Here, we find something new. The objection by Russia that Kuropyatnik had not been detained but had voluntarily followed the police officers was quickly dismissed. The ECHR noted that Article 19.3 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences makes declining an invitation by a police officer to go to a police station for questioning a crime punishable with both administrative fines and administrative detention. Clearly, Kuropyatnik was not free to refuse the “invitation,” and although not technically “arrested,” he was “detained.”

Was this detention unlawful? Yes, the ECHR answered in the most interesting part of the decision. Russia’s defense was based on two arguments. First, that including Kuropyatnik’s name in the Surveillance Database was justified by reasons of national security, on which the ECHR cannot second-guess the national authorities. Second, that there was no violation of freedom of religion because Scientology is not a religion and therefore is not protected by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

ECHR stated that how national security is protected finds a limit in articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and article 8 (respect for private and family life) of the European Convention of Human Rights. National security concerns cannot become a pretext to limit the liberty and violate the privacy of citizens who have not committed any crime, based only on their religious beliefs.

On the argument advanced by Russia that Scientology “is not a religion” the ECHR told Russia that it cannot have its cake and eat it too. At least until 2017, the ECHR observed, Russian courts and administrative authorities have consistently maintained that Scientology is a religion. In some cases, they did so to use against Scientology provisions against “religious extremism” that had been introduced to crack down on Islamic ultra-fundamentalism after both 9/11 and terrorist attacks on Russian soil.

The ECHR observed that Russia cannot at the same time call Scientology an “extremist religion” when it suits its purposes, noting that “the Russian authorities had repeatedly referred to Scientology as a religion to justify the imposition of restrictions on the Church of Scientology and its members,” and claim that it is not a religion to exclude it from the protection granted by article 9 of the Convention. The ECHR also referred to its own previous decisions on Russian cases involving Scientology, where it had stated that Scientology is indeed a religion.

The ECHR awarded Kuropyatnik EUR 5,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damages, and EUR 3,000 in respect of costs and expenses, plus taxes and interests.

More importantly, it sent Russia a clear message that the persecution and discrimination against the Church of Scientology should be stopped. While precedents involving the Jehovah’s Witnesses would support skepticism, one can only hope that Russia will hear the ECHR and understand that the persecution of Scientology is firmly condemned by the international community.

The message is for other countries, too. Registering a Scientologist (or a member of any other religion) in a police database, overtly or secretly, is discriminatory and illegal. It cannot be done without violating the European Convention on Human Rights.

Photo : Vladimir Kuropyatnik at a Scientology function in 2016. Source: Scientology Newsroom.

Massimo Introvigne (born June 14, 1955 in Rome) is an Italian sociologist of religions. He is the founder and managing director of the Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR), an international network of scholars who study new religious movements. Introvigne is the author of some 70 books and more than 100 articles in the field of sociology of religion. He was the main author of the Enciclopedia delle religioni in Italia (Encyclopedia of Religions in Italy). He is a member of the editorial board for the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion and of the executive board of University of California Press’ Nova Religio.  From January 5 to December 31, 2011, he has served as the “Representative on combating racism, xenophobia and discrimination, with a special focus on discrimination against Christians and members of other religions” of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). From 2012 to 2015 he served as chairperson of the Observatory of Religious Liberty, instituted by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to monitor problems of religious liberty on a worldwide scale.

Further reading about FORB in Russia on HRWF website





Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1216

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1216

Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1217

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1217

Notice: Undefined index: et_template in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1218

GERMANY: A Bavarian court of appeal rules that the “sect filter” is illegal

The Bavarian State Administrative Court of Appeal rules that applying the “sect filter” is illegal

A musician refused to submit the requested “protective declaration” that she does not “use the technology” or attend courses of Scientology. She was right, the court said.

By Massimo Introvigne

Bitter Winter (07.08.2021) – https://bit.ly/37OqZYG – A historical decision was rendered by the 4th Senate of the State Administrative Court of Appeal of Bavaria, with reasons communicated on August 3, 2021, overturning a first instance judgment by the Administrative Court of Munich dated August 28, 2019, on the controversial issue of a “sect filter” used by the City of Munich. ”Sect filters” are documents required by local governments, businesses and political parties in some areas of Germany. Anybody looking for a job, or for doing business with these institutions and companies, should sign a statement that s/he is not a Scientologist nor does s/he “use the technology of L. Ron Hubbard” (the founder of Scientology).

The City of Munich subsidizes electromobility, and the use of electrical vehicles, including electrical bikes called “pedelecs” for the purpose of environmental protection. A musician applied to receive a grant for purchasing a pedelec on August 6, 2018. As part of her application she was required to sign a “sect filter” declaring that “she will not apply, teach, or otherwise disseminate any of the contents or methods or technology of L. Ron Hubbard and that she will not attend any courses or seminars based on this technology.” She refused, and on December 12, 2019, the City of Munich rejected her application.

She sued the city, but on August 28, 2019, the Administrative Court of Munich found against her, stating that the city was “free to decide which group of persons is to be supported by voluntary financial contributions,” and exclude citizens supporting Scientology, based on the fact that “in the 2018 Bavarian Report on the Protection of the Constitution, the program and activities of the Scientology organization were declared incompatible with the fundamental principles of the free democratic basic order.” The first instance court noted that, notwithstanding this evaluation, the musician still had a right to attend courses of Scientology, as she did for forty years, based on general principles of freedom of opinion and religion, but she had no right to get the electromobility subsidy. The city also suspected that the woman might use the pedelec for missionary activities on behalf of the Church of Scientology, which the city does not want to support.

The musician appealed, noting that she had clearly stated that she “is a freelance musician and plays mainly in classical orchestras; she wants to use the pedelec to get to rehearsals and performances.” She never performed missionary activities on behalf of Scientology, and considered the claim that she would need a bike for such purposes as absurd. She also questioned the accuracy of the assessment of the Bavarian Office for the Protection of the Constitution, based on her long experience as a Scientologist. And she claimed that the wording of the “sect filter” is “vague and excessive,” as it refers to any and all “contents” and “methods” L. Ron Hubbard may have taught in thousands of pages of works, and to any and all courses and seminars based on Hubbard’s ideas, which deal with a wide variety of fields. Also, the “sect filter” requires those who sign it to disclose their religious adherence and belief, which is prohibited by both the German Constitution and international human rights law.

The city objected that a freelance musician is not a private individual but, since she bills for her services, she is a “business” or a “company,” and since 1996 the Bavarian State Government had announced that they regard any business run by a Scientologist as “run according to the technology of L. Ron Hubbard” and thus “a component of the overall Scientology organization.” That this applied to the activity of the musician  was denied by the Bavarian State Administrative Court.

The  Administrative Court of Appeal concluded that the city’s decision “is unlawful and violates the plaintiff’s rights.” Imposing a “sect filter” before granting electromobility funding violates the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom and the constitutional principle of equality before the law, which requires that citizens should not be subject to disadvantages by reason of one’s race, origin, language, belief or religious or philosophical conviction, the court concluded.

Read the full article here

Photo: “No support for buying a pedelec (above) if you don’t renounce Scientology,” the City of Munich said.

Massimo Introvigne (born June 14, 1955 in Rome) is an Italian sociologist of religions. He is the founder and managing director of the Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR), an international network of scholars who study new religious movements. Introvigne is the author of some 70 books and more than 100 articles in the field of sociology of religion. He was the main author of the Enciclopedia delle religioni in Italia (Encyclopedia of Religions in Italy). He is a member of the editorial board for the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion and of the executive board of University of California Press’ Nova Religio.  From January 5 to December 31, 2011, he has served as the “Representative on combating racism, xenophobia and discrimination, with a special focus on discrimination against Christians and members of other religions” of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). From 2012 to 2015 he served as chairperson of the Observatory of Religious Liberty, instituted by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to monitor problems of religious liberty on a worldwide scale.

Further reading about FORB in Germany on HRWF website





Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1216

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1216

Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1217

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1217

Notice: Undefined index: et_template in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1218

GERMANY: State of Baden-Württemberg loses in court against a Scientologist

Scientology membership does not forward anti-constitutional endeavours – scientologists follow the law.

EUtoday ( 16.04.2021)- https://bit.ly/3ts9k2g – 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.

The statements in the above headline 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.

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 plaintiff had credibly demonstrated to the Court, that – just like for any other Scientologist – his membership in Scientology is solely about his spiritual development as a human being. The Stuttgart Administrative Court therefore concluded, that from his Scientology membership, “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.”

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.”

Download Court Judgement.

 

Photo: Eutoday

 

 





Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1216

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1216

Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1217

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1217

Notice: Undefined index: et_template in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1218

Scientology v. Germany: 50 years of legal battles

HRWF (05.10.2020) – As Scientologists celebrate the 50th anniversary of the settlement of their Church in Germany, Ivan Arjona, their European representative, requested a UN investigation into discrimination against Scientologists in Germany during a statement at the 45th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Arjona reminded Germany’s representative to the UN that “over the past three decades, dozens of German courts have condemned the actions of the government against Scientologists at different levels and recognized their rights as per Article 4 of [the German] Constitution.” Article 4 decrees that: “Freedom of faith and conscience, and freedom to profess a religious or philosophical creed shall be inviolable.”

 

He also stressed that the German executive powers have ignored the decisions of the German courts for almost 50 years now.

 

“Sect filters” and discrimination

Last year, at the OSCE/ODIHR Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM) in Warsaw, some NGOs criticised Germany for stigmatising and discriminating against people who believe in the teachings of Scientology.

In Bavaria and a few other German Länder, the authorities use what they call “sect filters” when someone applies for a public job, a public service contract or a government bid. These “sect filters” contain questions exclusively targeting the possible affiliation or relationship of the candidate with Scientology. If so, the candidate is disqualified. If the applicant refuses to fill in the questionnaire, they are also disqualified.

“This is not only intrusive and discriminatory, but this gravely violates the international human rights standards and stigmatises the followers of Ron Hubbard’s teachings as sub-citizens,” one of the NGOs said. The teachings of Scientology are not banned in Germany and spreading them is not a criminal activity. Therefore, their followers should not be treated differently from the followers of the Bible, the Coran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Buddhist or any other teachings.

The German delegation to the OSCE replied to these challenges by stating that in their country Scientology is not recognized as a religious community.

However, this answer was irrelevant for two main reasons. Firstly, according to the OSCE/ODIHR standards, a non-recognition of a religious or belief system by the state does not justify discrimination against its followers. Secondly, German courts have already ruled that Scientology was entitled to the protection of Article 4 of the Basic Law on Freedom of Religion or Belief.

German court decisions finding Scientologists and their Church to be protected under Article 4 of the German Constitution

  1. Church of Scientology of Berlin v. City of Berlin, 27 February 2009, Berlin Administrative Court.
  2. B. v. City of Hamburg, 27 June 2008, Hamburg Administrative Court.
  3. Church of Scientology of Germany, Church of Scientology of Hamburg v. City of Hamburg, 7 March 2008, Hamburg Civil Court of Appeal.
  4. B. v. City of Hamburg, 19 December 2007, Hamburg State Administrative Court of Appeal (referred to in #2 above at page 5).
  5. Church of Scientology of Berlin v. City of Berlin, 29 June 2006, Administrative Court Berlin.
  6. B. v. City of Hamburg, 15 June 2006, Administrative Court Hamburg.
  7. K. v. City of Hamburg, 15 December 2005, Federal Administrative Supreme Court.
  8. Winkler v. State of Bavaria, Federal Supreme Administrative Court, March 2005.
  9. Celebrity Centre Church of Scientology Munich v. County of Upper Bavaria, 2 November 2005, Bavarian State Administrative Court of Appeal.
  10. K. v. City of Hamburg, 17 June 2004, Hamburg State Administrative Court of Appeal.
  11. Church of Scientology of Dusseldorf v. City of Dusseldorf, District Court Dusseldorf, March 2004.
  12. Church of Scientology Stuttgart v. State of Baden-Württemberg, 12 December 2003, State Administrative Court of Appeal Baden-Württemberg.
  13. Church of Scientology International v. City of Hamburg, 22 April 2003, State Administrative Court of Appeal Hamburg.
  14. Church of Scientology International v. City of Munich, 26 March 2003, Munich Administrative Court.
  15. Z. v. Church of Scientology Berlin, 26 September 2002, Federal Supreme Labor Court.
  16. Church of Scientology International v. City of Hamburg, July 2002, State Administrative Court of Appeal Hamburg.
  17. Scientology Mission Ulm v. City of Kempten/Allgäu, 25 November 1996, Administrative Court Augsburg.
  18. Church of Scientology Bavaria v. Federal Labor Office, 19 January 2000, Social Court Nuremburg.
  19. Church of Scientology Stuttgart v. City of Stuttgart, 17 November 1999, Administrative Court Stuttgart.
  20. H. v. Church of Scientology Hamburg, 5 January 1998, District Civil Court of Hamburg.
  21. Scientology Mission Neue Brücke v. State of Baden-Württemberg, 6 November 1997, Federal Supreme Administrative Court.
  22. City of Freiburg v. E., 6 February 1996, District Court Freiburg.
  23. Scientology Mission Neue Brücke v. State of Baden-Württemberg, 2 August 1995, State Administrative Court of Appeal Baden-Württemberg.
  24. Church of Scientology Hamburg v. City of Hamburg, 16 February 1995, Federal Supreme Administrative Court.
  25. Church of Scientology Hamburg v. City of Hamburg, 24 August 1994, State Administrative Court of Appeal Hamburg.
  26. S. v. Scientology Mission Nymphenburg, 30 March 1993, Superior Civil Court Munich.
  27. Church of Scientology Germany v. State Baden-Württemberg/ABI, 26 August 1992, Administrative Court Stuttgart.
  28. G. v. Church of Scientology Frankfurt, 27 May 1992, Superior Civil Court of Frankfurt.
  29. Scientologist v. Newspaper Publishing House, June 1992, Civil Court of Appeal Stuttgart.
  30. State Attorney with Superior Court Berlin v. Church of Scientology of Berlin, 22 January 1991.
  31. City of Hannover v. H., 19 September 1990, District Court Hannover.
  32. Church of Scientology Frankfurt v. City of Frankfurt, 4 September 1990, Administrative Court Frankfurt.
  33. P. v. Church of Scientology Frankfurt, 7 June 1989, Superior Civil Court Frankfurt.
  34. Church of Scientology Berlin v. State of Berlin, 12 October 1988, Administrative Court Berlin.
  35. Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre Hamburg v. City of Hamburg, 17 February 1988, Superior Civil Court Hamburg.
  36. Church of Scientology of Frankfurt v. City of Frankfurt, 7 October 1987, State Attorney with the Superior Court of Frankfurt.
  37. Scientology Mission Ulm v. State of Baden-Württemberg, 3 September 1986, Administrative Court Sigmaringen.
  38. Church of Scientology Germany v. City of Munich, 10 December 1985, Bavarian State Administrative Court of Appeal.
  39. Church of Scientology Hamburg v. City of Hamburg, 14 October 1985, Administrative Court Hamburg.
  40. Church of Scientology Germany v. City of Munich, 25 June 1985, Bavarian State Administrative Court of Appeal.
  41. In re City of Stuttgart v. K., 20 May 1985, District Court Stuttgart.
  42. In re City of Stuttgart v. M., 30 January 1985, District Court Stuttgart.
  43. Church of Scientology Germany v. City of Munich, 25 July 1984, Administrative Court Munich.
  44. X. v. City of Berlin, 11 February 1981, Administrative Court Berlin.
  45. Church of Scientology Germany v. Federal Republic of Germany, 25 September 1980, Federal Supreme Court.
  46. S. v. Federal Republic of Germany, 27 August 1980, Administrative Court Frankfurt.
  47. X. v. Federal Republic of Germany, 14 December 1978, Administrative Court Darmstadt (and appeal of 14 November 1980).
  48. F. v. Church of Scientology Stuttgart, 8 December 1976, District Court Stuttgart.

 


Notice: Undefined index: et_footer_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1261

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1261

Notice: Undefined index: et_footer_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1262

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1262

Notice: Undefined index: et_template in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1263