Religious freedom inside the EU border is guaranteed under the EU charter of fundamental rights which is policed by the EU fundamental rights agency in Vienna. In addition, all the member states of the EU are constrained by fundamental democratic principles for which the commission can hold them to account if their laws don't correspond.
And yet, there are cases that show that show that religious freedom is at stake.
The most recent cases came from Finland and Sweden.
Päivi Räsänen, a member of Finnish Parliament and former minister, faces four investigations after tweeting a Bible passage questioning that the Evangelical Church in Finland sponsored the Pride 2019.
Ellinor Grimmark and Linda Steen, two Swedish midwives, appealed to the European Court for Human Rights because they found unemployed and could not apply for any job since they refused to help to perform abortions. The appeal was, however, declared inadmissible.
These are not the only cases, and it is not a new situation. It is worth remembering that the Holy See personally took the floor in 2013. Following the discussion of two cases at the European Court for Human Rights, the Holy See sent a note and widely explained why the religions are not "lawless areas" but instead "spaces of freedom."
The two cases that brought about the Holy See's note are Sindicatul' Pastoral cel bun' versus Romania and Fernandez Martinez versus Spain. Both of them provide food for thought even today.
The first case was about a labor union formed in 2008 by the clergy in an Orthodox Church diocese to defend their "professional, economic, social, and cultural interests" in their dealings with the church.
When the Romanian government registered the new union, the church sued, pointing out that her canons do not allow for unions and arguing that registration violated the principle of church autonomy.
A Romanian court agreed with the Church, and the union challenged the court's judgment in the European Court for Human Rights. The union argued that the decision not to register violated Article 11 of the European Convention, which grants a right to freedom of association.
In 2012, the chamber reasoned that, under Article 11, a state might limit freedom of association only if it shows "a pressing social need," defined in terms of a "threat to a democratic society," This did not happen in Romania. So the chamber faulted the Romanian court, and Romania appealed to the Grand Chamber – the final EU judicial appeal venue.
(Column continues below)
Subscribe to our daily newsletter
The second case regarded Fernandez Martinez, a Spanish instructor of religion. In Spain, public schools offer classes in Catholicism, taught by instructors approved by the local bishop. Fernandez Martinez did not get his bishop's approval. A laicized priest, Fernandez Martinez, took a public stand against mandatory priestly celibacy. When the school dismissed the instructor, he brought suit under the European Convention. His dismissal – he argued – violated his right to privacy, family life, and expression.
A section of the European Court ruled against him, because in withdrawing approval – the section stated – the bishop had acted "in accordance with the principle of religious autonomy"; the instructor had been dismissed for purely religious reasons, and it would be inappropriate for a secular court to intrude.
These two cases – the "Vatican foreign minister", then-Archbishop Dominique Mamberti noted – "call into question the Church's freedom to function according to her own rules and not be subject to civil rules other than those necessary to ensure that the common good and just public order are respected."
One should say that this is a vexata quaestio (an already widely discussed issue), with significance far beyond Europe.
Europe, however, is living in a particularly worrisome situation. The Observatoire de la Christianophobie in France and the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christian in Europe report an increasing number of cases that are food for thought.
Religions became even more vulnerable after the coronavirus outbreak. Many provisions of various governments to counter the spread of the infection also jeopardized freedom of worship. It was an emergency, and everybody understands that, but at the same time, it is always essential to re-establish a principle, in order not to set a precedent.