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

182
FOGLI DI LAVORO per il Diritto internazionale 3/2008
and 2 of the Basic Law. It quashed the judgment insofar as the
applicant associations' claim had been dismissed in respect of
the use of the expressions “destructive”, and “pseudo-religious”,
and the allegation that they “manipulated their members” and
referred that part of the complaint back to the Administrative
Court of Appeal for a new decision. However, it found that the
Government was authorised to characterise the applicant
associations' movement as a “sect”, “youth religion”, “youth
sect” and “psycho-sect” and was allowed to provide the public
with adequate information about it.
21. According to the Federal Constitutional Court, the right
to freedom of religion or belief guaranteed by Article 4 §§ 1 and
2 of the Basic Law did not prevent the State from entering into a
public and even critical discussion about the aims and activities
of religious groups. The limitations on the freedom of religion
were to be found in other basic rights and freedoms guaranteed
by the Basic Law, such as the protection of human dignity, the
right to life and physical integrity and the protection of marriage
and the family.
22. The power to manage State affairs derived directly from
the Basic Law and authorised the Federal Government to
provide information in all matters coming within the sphere of
their overall State responsibility. Providing direct public
information helped them to resolve conflicts within the State and
society, to face challenges even if they occurred at short notice,
to react quickly and adequately to the problems and concerns of
citizens and assist them in finding guidance. This activity did
not require an express legal provision, since it did not constitute
a direct interference with the applicant associations' rights. It
merely influenced the conduct of others vis-à-vis the applicant
associations. Moreover, it was not possible to establish rules for
the Government's information-imparting role, given the wide
variety of the subject matter dealt with and methods used. When
acting in the exercise of their power to direct State affairs, the
Federal Government were entitled to provide information to the
public, even if basic rights were indirectly affected as a result.
23. However, the State had to restrict itself to neutral terms
and act with moderation in matters of religion or belief.
Defamatory, discriminating or deceptive statements were
prohibited. The Government also had to respect the separation