195
Re: Church of Scientology
When we last met on 20 April you noted that you had seen press releases about two recent court cases in Germany involving Churches of Scientology located there. Apparently, these press reports indicated that the two court decisions ruled that Scientology is not a religion. You asked for our comments on the two decisions.
One such court decision involves the appliqability -ofetreade- registration laws to the Church of Scientology -of Hamle4r4,e This decision simply holds that the Church, because-of its activities; was required to comply with the relevant trade registration laws whether or not the organisation in question happens to bo a church or another religious organisation. Thus, this decision does not rele on Scientology's religiosity; to the contrary, - ,it proceeds from the assumption that Scientology is a religion. A copy of this decision, in both original German and Emglieh translation, is attached as Exhibit 1.
It is impossible to analyze the other,00urt deciSion at this time, however, since as yet we have only t_he: Press - rele40 And no written decision has been issued. The generAleconteXt'of this case involved the applicability of certainjabour Yaws tO the Church of Scientology of Hamburg. It may well be that the written decision, once released, will be the same as the first Hamburg case -- a determination that the relevant laws apply
CORRESPONDENT OFFICES: LONDON. PARIS AND BRUSSELS irrespective of the religious nature of the organisation in question. On the other hand, the language of the press release suggests the appellate court in fact may have evaluated the religious character of Scientology based on independent readings of Scientology Scripture that the judges may have undertaken on their own initiative and reached a negative conclusion. If this was so, such a "holding" would be plainly erroneous under German law, for several reasons, and easily reversed on appeal. First, a decision on the question of religiosity would be totally irrelevant to resolution of the issue at hand, since, as the two lower courts held, the law in question applies regardless of the employer's religious standing. Thus, the appellate court failed to address the issue raised on appeal, but on its own went on to address another issue not properly before it. This action directly violated German judicial procedural requirements. that the appellate court limit its review to determine only whether the lower court failed"to apply or incorrectly applied the applicable rule of law. Second, the Scientology books that the judges apparently read were not part of the record but rather appear to have been procured by the judges on their own initiative from some unknown sources. This action alone violated two other important German rules of judicial procedure. One rule is that an appellate court cannot make its own findings of fact -- as discussed above, it must limit its review to narrow issues of law. The other rule is that "evidence" such as books be submitted in accordance with detailed rules of evidence, which allow both parties to comment on the particular items under consideration. The Church of Scientology of Hamburg did not present any evidence on the issue of religiosity because the courts below specifically found that the issue of whether Scientology is a religion was not relevant to the case before them. The action of the court has denied the parties this right, and thereby violated fundamental principles of "fair trial" under German procedural laws.
Such a decision also would be directly contrary to numerous decisions of German courts and administrative agencies recognizing Scientology as a religion under Article 4 of the German Constitution, 11 but it would not be surprising, given the present hostile political climate in Germany towards Scientology.