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

FOGLI DI LAVORO per il Diritto internazionale 3/2008
of powers between the Federal State and the Länder. The
Government were authorised to impart information relating to
supra-regional matters and where nationwide information helped
to resolve problems efficiently. Providing information in these
circumstances did not exclude or impair the powers of the
Länder governments to impart information themselves, nor did
it prevent the administrative authorities from carrying out their
administrative tasks.
24. Furthermore, the Federal Government had to respect the
principle of proportionality when imparting information.
Statements affecting the very essence of the right guaranteed by
Article 4 §§ 1 and 2 of the Basic Law had to be appropriate in
relation to the cause for concern.
25. As to the term “sect”, the Federal Constitutional Court
found that the Government were not prohibited from using the
term, which at the material time corresponded to the general
understanding of new religious movements. Similarly, the use of
the terms “youth religion” and “youth sect” described the
prevailing situation at the material time and the term “psychosect”
reflected the Osho movement's meditation practices. These
terms were employed without discriminatory differences of
treatment in respect of these groups on grounds of their religion
or belief. They complied with the obligation of the State to
neutrality in matters of religious and philosophical beliefs and
did not affect the very essence of the right guaranteed by Article
4 §§ 1 and 2 of the Basic Law.
26. In contrast, the use of the terms “destructive” and
“pseudo- religious”, and the allegation that members of the
movement were manipulated, did not satisfy the requirements of
constitutional law.
27. Even if the employment of such terms could not be
criticised on the ground that it exceeded the powers of the
Federal Government, the terms used nonetheless infringed the
neutrality requirement and were thus not justifiable according to
the proportionality principle. In particular, no substantiated
reasons had been advanced which could have justified the
statements regarded as defamatory by the complainants, nor
were any such reasons otherwise apparent. That decision was
served on the applicant associations on 30 July 2002.
183