FOGLI DI LAVORO per il Diritto internazionale 3 ... - Giurisprudenza

180
FOGLI DI LAVORO per il Diritto internazionale 3/2008
14. The Administrative Court found that those terms evoked
a negative connotation of the basic contents of the applicant
associations' religious beliefs and that the use of those terms
infringed their religious freedom guaranteed by Article 4 § 1 of
the Basic Law. It considered, however, that the use of the term
“sect” as such had no negative impact on the applicant
associations' religious belief.
15. The Administrative Court pointed out that there was no
indication that the applicant associations pursued exclusively
commercial aims or that the teachings of Osho or the methods
employed by the applicant associations were contrary to human
dignity. The right protected by Article 4 of the Basic Law
obliged the State to maintain strict neutrality regarding religious
activities and prohibited negative judgments on a determined
religious belief. Furthermore the use of such general terms was
not appropriate for the prevention of danger.
16. On 28 April 1986 the Government appealed against that
judgment. A hearing was held before the Administrative Court
of Appeal of the Land North Rhine-Westphalia
(Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen) on
22 May 1990. By a judgment of the same day the
Administrative Court of Appeal quashed the impugned
judgment and dismissed the applicant associations' claim as a
whole, as well as the appeals of two applicant associations who
had contested the findings of the first-instance court as regards
the use of the term “sect”. It did not allow an appeal on points of
law.
17. The Administrative Court of Appeal found that the
contested statements interfered with the applicant associations'
basic rights guaranteed by Article 4 §§ 1 and 2 of the Basic
Law. However, the right to religious freedom was not absolute.
It was subject to limitations by other provisions of the Basic
Law. Limitations and interferences by the State had to be
accepted where important reasons of public interest required the
protection of basic rights which were in conflict with the right to
freedom of religion. Where a mere suspicion of a possible
violation of these rights existed, relevant information and
warnings were appropriate and necessary for their protection.
Under Article 65 of the Basic Law, which vested governmental
functions in the Government, taken together with the positive