VZCZCXRO3755
RR RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHLN RUEHLZ
RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHDF #0009/01 0521431
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 211431Z FEB 08
FM AMCONSUL DUSSELDORF
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0115
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUCNFRG/FRG COLLECTIVE
RUEHDF/AMCONSUL DUSSELDORF 0131

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 DUSSELDORF 000009 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KIRF PHUM PGOV GM
SUBJECT: GERMAN COURT REJECTS SCIENTOLOGY APPEAL AGAINST 
SURVEILLANCE 
 
DUSSELDORF 00000009  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
Sensitive but Unclassified -- Not for Internet Distribution 
 
¶1.  (U) Summary: The Higher Administrative Court in Muenster 
rejected an appeal  by the Church of Scientology (COS) of 
Germany February 12 to end surveillance of the Church by the 
Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (OPC). 
The court found that COS maintained "ambitions against Germany's 
free and democratic basic order," thus justifying continued 
surveillance, including via intelligence means.  The court did 
not rule as to whether COS is a religion, arguing that this 
issue was not relevant for the decision at hand.  The decision 
confirmed the Federal Government's position on this matter and 
represents a major setback in COS Germany's long-standing legal 
campaign against OPC surveillance and for recognition as a 
church.  End Summary. 
 
¶2.  (U) The Muenster Court decision is part of an ongoing legal 
battle that goes back to a 2003 joint suit by COS Germany and 
COS Berlin against the Federal Republic of Germany in connection 
with the surveillance of COS by the federal OPC.  Since the OPC 
is headquartered in Cologne, courts in North Rhine-Westphalia 
(NRW) have jurisdiction over the case.  The Cologne 
Administrative Court rejected the initial petition of COS in 
November 2004, finding that the OPC monitoring was legal.  COS 
appealed the decision to the Higher Administrative Court in 
Muenster, where the case had been pending for the last three 
years.  This report is based on the observations and 
conversations of Duesseldorf Pol/Econ Specialist, who attended 
the hearing. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -------------------- 
Scientology Claims Discrimination and Violation of Religious 
Freedom 
--------------------------------------------- -------------------- 
 
¶3.  (U) During the February 12 five-hour court hearing, COS 
lawyers built their case around two main legal arguments: that 
COS has been the victim of government discrimination and that 
the government actions have violated COS' right to religious 
freedom pursuant to Article 4 of the German constitution.  The 
court appeared to be unimpressed by these arguments, focusing 
instead on certain statements made by Scientology founder L. Ron 
Hubbard which the court characterized as extremist and relevant 
for COS operations today.  COS lawyers tried to play down these 
statements, likening them to certain passages in the Old 
Testament which, they argued, also had no relevance for 
Christian churches today.  OPC legal counsel refuted this 
argument, however, quoting Scientology documents that they 
asserted demonstrates the direct relevance of Hubbard's 
teachings and statements to COS's current activities. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----------------- 
Court says Scientology Efforts go Against Free, Democratic Order 
--------------------------------------------- ----------------- 
 
¶4.  (U) Michael Bertrams, the presiding judge of the five-member 
panel, presented the main grounds for the decision in a brief 
oral statement. (The full written text of the decision will not 
be available for several weeks.)  Bertrams argued that there are 
concrete indications that the COS and its members are engaged in 
"efforts directed against (Germany's) free and democratic basic 
order."   He asserted Scientology is striving to establish a 
social order in which "central constitutional principles such as 
human dignity and the right to equal treatment are to be 
repealed or restricted."  In particular, he said, there is 
"suspicion that in a Scientological society only Scientologists 
could have civil rights."  (NOTE:  Bertrams is the most senior, 
and many maintain most respected, judge in NRW, as he is the 
longtime President of the Higher Administrative Court in 
Muenster and is also President of the NRW Constitutional Court, 
where he is Chief Justice.  END NOTE.) 
 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
------- 
Court does not Address Claim of Religion -- COS Announces Appeal 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
------- 
 
¶5.  (U) Bertrams further asserted that given its findings and 
because Scientology is currently expanding its activities in 
Germany, the continuation of OPC surveillance of COS is 
"justified, including surveillance by intelligence means" (i.e. 
through the use of undercover agents and eavesdropping devices). 
 He also noted that the court had intentionally left open the 
question of whether COS is a religious community, arguing that 
this issue is not relevant for its decision.  Finally, the court 
ruled that the COS may appeal the decision only on procedural 
grounds and not on the merits of the case.  This limited appeal 
would be handled by the Federal Administrative Court (FAC) in 
Leipzig; Scientology has announced it will do so. 
 
 
DUSSELDORF 00000009  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
-------- 
Comment 
-------- 
 
¶6.  (SBU) The February 12 decision constitutes the highest court 
ruling to date in Germany on the matter of OPC surveillance of 
Scientology.  In the past, COS Germany had partial successes at 
lower administrative court level in Saarlouis and Berlin in 
cases that involved monitoring by state-level OPCs.   In its 
efforts to end surveillance at the national level by the Federal 
OPC, however, COS Germany has suffered a major setback.  The 
German Federal Government and certain state governments will 
likely view this decision as a confirmation of their position on 
the need for continued OPC monitoring.  The fact that the court 
did not consider the issue of whether or not COS constitutes a 
religion indicates that the COS lawyers' strategy of building 
their case primarily on this argument was unsuccessful.   It 
remains to be seen whether COS will pursue what some observers 
believe may be a promising legal course of action by filing a 
petition with the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. 
 
¶7.  (U) This message was coordinated with Embassy Berlin. 
BOYSE