Bahá’í World/Volume 20/Recognition of the Bahá’í Faith

←Previous

The Bahá’í World Volume 20

Next→

[Page 544]

V RECOGNITION OF THE BAHA’t FAITH

1. INCORPORATION OF NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLIES Riḍván 1986 to Riḍván 1992

In previous volumes, many certificates of incorporation or other documents attesting recognition of various National Spiritual Assemblies have been reproduced. The following are representative of the forms of recognition. obtained by Natianal Spiritual Assemblies during the period covered by this volume. ‘

. Certificate of Incorporation of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís Of the Cook Islands; 2 February 1989.

. Recognition of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Guinea—Bissau in accordance With the provisions of the Constitution; 7 July 1988.

. Receipt of the Declaration of Trust for the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Guinea; 29 May 1986 (first page).

. Certificate of change of name from the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of South and West Africa to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of South Africa; 27 March 1987.

. Certificate of Incorporation of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the West Leeward Islands; 23 October 1991.

[Page 545]'686] ((1119711an 5 .‘szmISI 31009 9111/0 512‘ pqvg 9211/0 (fzqwassV zmuuzdg [vuozzvN 9111 f0 uozzmodizooujfo azvozfzuag ' [

l.“ zmd l). (300

DEPARTMENT OF J USTICE

CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

Under the I ncorporated Societies A ct 1908

0' ' THE NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAEH'I'S OF THE (411 1:131:1th that .......... ._ ..

COOK ISLANDS INC.

is incorporated under the Incorporated

Societies Act 1908. Dated at RAHOTONGA FEBRUARY

87360 850 pads/12/78 YBO

, C) :10 AHAHHS rIVNOIlVNHEIlNI

SEILLIALLDV LVHVEI LNHHHH

9179

[Page 546]546 THE Bahá’í WORLD

REPUBLICA DA GUINE-BISSAU

MINISTERIB DA EDUBAGAU, CULTURA E DESPURTUS

CABINETE DO MINXSTRO

DESPACHO NORMATIVO N9 j/«Qg

Considerando o pedido formulado pelarAssembleia Espiritual Nacional dos Bah'is da Guiné—Bissau para o seu legal reconhecimento ;

Tendo em atengao que, o Ministério da Educagéo, Cultura e Desportos de conformidade com a deciséo do Conselho de Ministros, tenha estudado o respectivo dossier que para o efeito the fora oportunamente remetido ;

Atendendo a0 facto de que a Assembleia Espiritual Nacional dos Bah'is da Guiné-Bissau para além do Culto, prossegue fins identicos aos objectives almejados pelo Estado,

O Ministério da Educagéo, Cultura e Desportos, no uso das atrlbuigaes e competéncias que the foram delegadas pelo Conselho de Ministros em 11 de Julho de 1985 decide :

ARTIGO l E reconhecida a Assembleia Espiritual Nacional

dos BahVis da Guiné—Bissau, conformemente ao estatuido no ArtQ 44 da Constituigéo.

ARTIGO 2

850 aprovados os respectivos estatutos que v50 em anexo, publicados com este Decreto.

Mlnlstro da Educ adfgcfilguga e Desportos ‘37/0‘ 7‘\\ u q}

A ~V‘ 1 x“ . . V‘ "4 EauuAQFQ

GABINETE DO MINISTRf

2. Recognition Ofthe National Spiritual Assembly offhe Bahd ’z's Of Guinea—Bissau in accordance with the provisions offhe Constitution; 7 July 1988.

[Page 547]INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT Bahá’í ACTIVITIES 547

PRESIDENECE DE LA REPUBLlOUE REPUBLIQUE DE GUINEE TRAVNL-JUSTICE-SOLIDAR!TE

MINISTERE DE L'INTERIEUR ET DE LA DECENTRALISATION

Conakry, le 23 [5-1 1886 N" fl/MlD/CAB /86

L£3A4LVLSTR£? A MONSIEUR LE REPRESENTANT DE LIASSEMBLEE

SPIRI‘I‘UELIE NATIONAIE DES BAHA'IS DE GUINEE.

RECIPISSE DE DECLARATION D'ASSOCIATION

Le Ministre de l'lntérieur et de la Décentralisation donne aux personues ci-aprés désignées, récipissé de déclaration pour Z'association régie par I'Ordonnance n° 072 portant création des O.N.G. en République de Guinée et définie comma suit o

1) — TITRE : Assemblée spiritualle Nationale des Bahá’ís de Guinée. Siége social quartier de Taouyah a Conakry II.

2) — OBZET : Gérer les affaires et biens concernant la communamté Bahaie de Guinée, en respectant Zes principes du systéme adminis tratif établis par BAHA'u'llah.

— Effectuer toute transaction mobiliére et immobiliére, acquérir om construire des biblio §é£/' théques,des dispensaires, des époles, réalis

99/5.

3. Receipt offlze Declaration of Trust for the National Spiritual Assembly Ofthe Bahd ’z's oquz'nea; 29 May 1986 (firstpage).

[Page 548]548 THE Bahá’í WORLD

Ropubtic of South Ahlca nepunneK van aum-Aumu . v...” w... w..Companies Act. 1973. Section 44(1Hb) Maalskappywat. 1973. Anikal 44(1)“)! ’1 /

76/00020/08

Reglatratlon No. of company/Reglstmsienommer van maatakappy

Certificate of Change of name of company

Sertifikaat van verandering ’ van naam van maatskappy

This is to certify that/Hierhy word gesertifiseer dat

The National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ía of South and West Africa (Incorporated Association not for Gain) has changed its name by SPECIAL RESOLUTION and is now called sy naam verander het by SPESIALB BESLUIT en nou genoem word

The National Spiritual Assembly

of the Bahá’ía of South Africa (Incorporated Association not for Gai )

and that the new name has this day been entered in the Registenr of Companies. en dat die nuwe naam op hierdie dag in die Register van Maatskappye aangeteken is.

Signed and sealed at Pretorla, lhls/Geteken en geseél te Pretoria op hede div 0? 77%

day of/dag van

One Thousand Nine Hundred and/Eendulsend Negehonderd M 741 W“

filfixW V Registrar of Compafiflé/Reglstrateur van Maatskappye

Seal of Companies Registration Office Seél van Registraléur van Maatsklppya

4. Certificate ofclzange of name from the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of South and West Africa to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís ofSouth Africa; 27 March 1987.

[Page 549]INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT Bahá’í ACTIVITIES 549

SAINT CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS

iWis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTIQE‘ZWM I "" 7?; \1 SAINT CHRISTOPHER CIRCUIT? '23 OCT/‘i‘fr /\ 91 ‘1‘“ {1: ) 1/

No. 52 of 19231.1

wmsafi Of 3nml‘por‘mb”

NA 11111111311 511111111111 213515111111 01 111E BAHA'IS I HEREBY CERTIFY that /017 1111 M 51 11:1:wARD ISLANDS

is this day incorporated under the Companies Act, Chapter 335, and that the Company is Limited.

GIVEN under my Hand and Seal of the Registrar of Companies Saint Christopher and chis,, this1...213.r_11

3x335511°E§£E€§§%%E€WS§E€&%§£%§E§€§§Wfi‘WfiQQWSfiSWSfifi‘EEQEQ

Hefifizfififimfififififififififlfififififififififlfififlflflfififlfi

0 day of. ........ 9 531?.351 ....... 1193.1r ‘1 £1 E24 /\ 1%: 54 :34: {XL ”1542/1 ‘/ kg; ya Winston H P 2tterson ifs; ’31 Registrar of joint Stock Companies 1;: ' VT x: 5:: ’ 1;; ‘3’! ‘ , 7;: 11311111131111 13 {$181 5112183112175” 1311131511111 J93 ‘1518Lfi1121fl5'1‘F—‘1;

5. Certificate oflncorporation offlze National Spiritual Assembly offlze Bahá’í ’z’s offhe West Leeward Islands; 23 October 1991.

[Page 550]THE BAHA’t WORLD

2. INCORPORATION OF LOCAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLIES Riḍván 1986 to Riḍván 1992

1. Decree by the Government of Quebec, Canada, regarding the Civil Registry of Bahá’í Local Spiritual Assemblies in Hull, Quebec, Iles—de~1a-Made1eine, Longueuil, and Montreal; 1990 (first page).

2. Registration of the Bahá’ís Of Ashkhabad of the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic by

the Council of Religious Affairs at the Council of Ministers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; 25 J anuary 1990.

3. Recognition of the Bahá’ís of Dushanbe Of the Tadzhik Soviet Socialist Republic by the

Council of Ministers of Tadzhikistan; 14 November 1990.

[Page 551]INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT Bahá’í ACTIVITIES 551

MAY 0 7 1990

DECRET GOUVERNEMENT DU QUEBEC

\1 u; A b 1 — 9 O CONCERNANI‘ 1es registres de 1' état 1-: AVR. 1990 civil de certaines corporations religieuses désignées sous le nom de "Assanblées spirituelles des Bahá’ís"

-—-ooooooo—A’I'I'ENDU QUE: 1e 28 février 1973, des lettres patentes ont été accordées 3a la corporation religieuse désignée sous le nom de L'Assemblée spirituelle des Bahá’ís de Luceme c1111, 1e 28 avril 1984, est devenue L'Assemblée spiritueue. des Bahá’ís d‘Aylmer, en vertu de la Loi sur les corporations religieuses (L.R.Q. c. C-71);

A'I'l'ENDU QUE 1e 28 février 1973, des lettres patentes om: été accordées ‘a la corporation religieuse désignée sous le nom de L'Assenblée spiritualle des Bahá’ís de Hull, en vertu de cette 101;

A'I‘I'EINDU QUE 1e 28 février 1973, des lettres patentes ont été accordées a la corporation religieuse désignée sous le nom de L' Assemolée spirituelle des Baha' is de la ville de Québec, en vertu de cette 101;

ATPENDU QUE. 1e 20 avril 1979, des lettres patentes om: été accordées ‘a la corporation religieuse désignée sous le nom de L ' Assanblée spi ritual 1e des Baha' is des ?leswfle—la’Madeleine, en vertu de cette 101;

A'ITENDU QUE 1e 23 mars 1979, des lettres patentes cm- été accordées Ia la corporation religieuse désignée sous 1e rays: fie L'Assenblée spiritualle des Bahá’ís de mngueuil, en vertu 6.5: L‘ettc 101;

ATI'BNDU QUE 1e 2 mai 1989, des lettres patentes om: été accordées E: 1a corporation religieuse désignée sous le nan Ge LAssembléle spirituene des Bahá’ís de Montréal, en vertu de cet e 101;

ATTENDU’QJE‘ les. assemblées spirituelles des Bahá’ís précitées ne sont: pas des corRQraticns religieuses autorisées a tem: on a faire ten1r les registres de 1' état civil en vertu de 1' article 44 ch Code civil;

1. Decree by the Government onuebec Canada regarding the Civil Registry of Balm ' ’z’Local SpiritualAssemblies in Hull Québec Iles~ de— la—Madeleine Longueuil and Montreal, 1990 O’irstpage).

[Page 552]

5 52 THE Bahá’í WORLD

BHHMCKA

M3 UpOTOKOJIa N9 8 aacenaHJ/m COBeTa no ,ueJIaM peJmI'I/Ifi npm COBeTe MMHMCTpOB CCCP

25 HHBapfl 1990 r. P.1V100KB8.

CJIYMWIH: HpenCTaBJIel-me COBBTa MMHMCTpOB TypxmeHCKofi CCP OT 12.09.89 I“. M sarcmoquI/xe O'I‘ILBJIa no glenaM MychIbMaHCICOfi M dymficuofi pemmfi o pePMCTpaum/I pennmo’anoro odmeCTBa 6axaMCTOB B I". Amxadage.

HOCTAHOBI/IJM: 1.8apePM0Tpmp0BaTb pennrmosHoe odmec'rBo éaxaI/ICTOB B I‘.Amxa6a,ue TypKMeHCIcofi CCP.

2. AllmaéaflCROMy ropmcnomomy paCCMO'I‘peTb Bonpoc o MOJIMTBGHHOM anaHm/I mm ,uaHHoro odmeCTBa.

J

L) 1/35.”. _ HE’W‘KTB

\ \

/

MCX.N9 IO4 OT 31.01.90 P.

anmcxa nommcaHa tmeHOM COBeTa 11A. meafiJIOBhflw

2. Registration offlze Bahd ’z’s ofAslzkhabad offhe T urkmen Soviet Socialist Republic by ‘ the Council ofRelz‘gious Aflairs at the Council ofMim'Sters offlze Union ofSoviet Socialist Republics; 25 January 1990.

[Page 553]INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT Bahá’í ACTIVITIES 553

PCC TOLU'11{1~1CTOH -— TALUKHKCKAH CCP .4...COBETH AEHVTATXOH XAJ'IKHH [UAXPH AYLUAHB£

KOMMTETM WlPOl/Ifll/l R: A P 0 P H

RD’IUAHBHHCKHH FOPOACKOH COBET HAPOAHHX AEHYIATOB

MCHOJIHI/iTEJIbeM KOMMTET

P E LU E h’ H E

0 1-")..3._ m 14.11.1901.

zzogpafimi OdzxeoTBa GaxamoTOB . 1117111911168

td O

• ‘J’d

OK!) (:5 H

B IQESHGHHCKI-ifi ropncnomcom odpaTImaCL rpynna Bepymmmc rpamxaH, Iioioaegymfiix DGELI‘HK) GBJCBIIBM, B KOJII'IqeOTBe 26 quIOBeK, c npocsdofi 13213176121273}: :3. 1c .ueKTKBHo OTHpaBJlHTI: DSHIH‘HOSHHQ pmyaum. B COCTaBe mews sfiqxemwefiei’i glamoro pemimoanoro odmecTBa B GOHBUH'IHCTBQ 1:10:11; «:peraero Bcspao'ra, eon neaoz-zogepa 11 140.710.3933, OT 22 go 25 .7191“. - .ee‘rca 111201211131 110115.110 371. Hafiepezmoir’: 1519, BBHTHfi B Haem daxau-Ic'raxm, 5,1»: «.czpaaae;-?: 030m: pemnosmi}; 1111-1723103.

fifizoaogo'rzyfios CT. 52 KOHCTHTym-m 000?, :1 B. COOTBeTCTBIm C ysca'sczx flpeammma BSPXOBHOI‘O COBeTa Tamqmcxofi CCP Jé 334 0'1: 26 a3ryo'ra 1976 yoga "O pemiEHOSHHX odmmmemmx" 11.13asmaoHeHneL-1 COBeTa ‘no 119.2933 pemmm“: 3pm QgBeTQ 1131111110pr _CC_Cl:o*r 29.07.851‘. "O-Hopmme CTpozizeJLbCTBa, EOKmei ‘11 Kama pemirxioamm Opraimsammm o'rpoemifi 11m 03911.1( Hymn", ncnomom flmafldzmcxoro roponcxoro COBeTa Hapogzrrz; nenngaTOB — P E LU PI JI:

I. Bapemc-Epnpomn odmeCTBo Oaxanc'ros B rop.lIymaHde (001102 HHe 17911111111321 62321-13113 npmaramms) 11 paaaemm‘b emf ompamggyxome}: 1113110 ‘perzmzcgfiae pnryaum no anpecy: I‘Op. JIMEIBHOB, YJI‘. Hadepemaflg'ls

2. Hpoczz'r‘: COBBT MIIEHHOTPOB Tamamoxofi CCP yTBepmi'crL naHHoe pen: 11:33.

M. HK‘paMOB

THE. MHO, 331;. 1728, nap. 30090, 12.12.53 L

3. Recognition Oftl1e Bahd ’z's ofDushanbe Oft/1e T adz/zik Soviet Socialist Republic by the Council of M inisz‘ers of T adzhikistan; I 4 November 1990.

[Page 554]THE BAHA’t WORLD

3. A SELECTION OF OTHER DOCUMENTS RECORDING

OFFICIAL RECOGNITION OF THE Bahá’í FAITH Riḍván 1986 to Riḍván 1992

1.Appointment by the Attorney General of a Bahá’í Marriage Officer in the Commonwealth of the Bahamas, effective from 10 March 1988.

2. Approval of a legal representative of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Burundi by the Minister of Justice; 12 October 1988.

3. Letter from Equatorial Guinea’s Ministry of Finance recognizing the right of the National Spiritual Assembly, as a religious organization, to be exempt from taxes; 29 April 1986.

4. Certificate of recognition of the Lomaivuna Bahá’í Kindergarten by the Ministry of Education of the Government of Fiji, dated 21 August 1987.

5. Circular Letter from the Minister for the Administration of the Territories of Gabon dated 6 May 1987, stating that the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís Of Gabon may carry out any activities (first page).

6. Certificate dated 8 September 1988, duly registering the offices of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Ireland as a place for the solemnisation of marriage.

7. The Malawi Gazette Supplement, dated 7 November 1986, giving notice of the licensing of the Bahá’í Centre in Limbe, and the Bahá’í Teaching Institute in Amalika Village, for the celebration of marriages.

8.Renta1 agreement between the Bahá’í Property Incorporate and three individuals filed With the Clerk of Courts on the Island of Santo, Kwajalein Atoll, in the Marshall Islands on 14 November 1986, of a property for a Bahá’í Centre.

9. Letter dated 10 September 1987 from the Department of Education for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands recognizing Bahá’í Holy Days as days When children may be excused from classes.

10. Notification by the Government of Pakistan’s Ministry of Religious Affairs and Minority Affairs on 27 January 1988 of the appointment of a Bahá’í on the Advisory Council for Minorities Affairs.

11. Certificate of Registration of a Permitted School in Papua New Guinea dated 14 November 1986 for the Bahá’í Study Centre to operate as a high school.

[Page 555]INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT Bahá’í ACTIVITIES 555

12. Marriage contract of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the Philippines Which was approved by the Government in 1987.

13. Certificate of Registration by the Republic of Zambia of the William Mmuthe Maseltha Bahá’í Institute dated 5 October 1988.

14.First Day Cover of a commemorative stamp issued by the Government of Western Samoa for Christmas 1988. There are four stamps in this series, the $2.00 stamp having the picture of the House of Worship in Apia.

15. The Postal Department in India has depicted the House of Worship in New Delhi on a postage stamp to mark the Diamond Jubilee of that city. The Mashriqu’l-Adhkár is featured on one of two stamps Which portray well—known bui1dings in India’s capital. October 1991.

[Page 556]556 THE Bahá’í WORLD

REGETRARGENERAUSOFHCE P.0.Box532 Nassau, Bahamas

Mr. Michael Horton Ref: 15 U

P. 0. Box N 3822

Nassau, Bahamas. rQOCh May, 1988. Dear Sir,

I have to inform you that the Attorney General has appointed you a Marriage Officer for the Commonwealth of the Bahamas with effect from 10th March 1988.

I should be grateful if you would read the Marriage Act so as to familiarize yourself with your duties as a Marriage Officer.

The necessary forms and registers can be obtained from this Office on application.

I add my congratulations and best wishes.

B. Bain for Actg. Registrar General.

1. Appointment by the Attorney General of a Bahá’í’ Marriage Officer in the Commonwealth offlze Bahamas, efi’ective from 10 March 1988.

[Page 557]

INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT Bahá’í ACTIVITIES

REPUBLIQUE DU BURUNDI Bajumbura.le_..____________

MINISTERE DE LA jUSTlCE

Cabinet du Ministre

Rif- -‘ OHDONl-«EAI‘ICE N° "5/1/51 , DU M (Ddrdv'm 1981' 0W _ PORTANT AGREJMNT DU REPRESENTANT LEGAL ET DU

' REPRESENTANT LEGAL SUPPLEANT DE L'ASSO(II!«.TT()N tyflriiflH‘JMUALTTW DENOMMEE "ASSEMBLEE SPIRITUELLE NATIONALE DES BAHA'IS'DU BURUNDI". LE MINISTRE DE LA JUSTICE,

Vu 1e décreh—loi n° 1/b01 du 27 octobre 1987 portant organisation des pouvoirs légifilatif et réglementaire ;

Vu spéci.1~ ant en see articles 9 a 11, 1e décret du 27 novembre 1959 re) .4 1m: associations sans but lucratif applicable au Burundi en :Lu de l'ordonnence n° 111/66 du 4 mars 1960 ;

Vu l'ordonnanoe 11" 560/45 du 7 avril 1973 portant octroi

de l'autorisation préalable de constitution et de la personnalité civile en faveur d1: l'association sans but lucratif dénommée "ASSEMBIEE SPIRITUELIE NATIONALE DES BAHA'IS' DU BURUNDI" ;

Vu la requéte introduite en date du 21 juillet 1988 par les membres de cette association at désimant Messieurs Ildephonse

MIGISHA e‘t 06mg NIEPAGARITSE respectivement en qualité de Représentanz‘

Légal et de Rey-résentant Légal Suppléant ;

Attendu qua cette requéte est conforms aux disg-ositions du décret susvisé ;

ORDONNE:

Article 1 : Sont agréés respectivement en eiualité de Représen’cant Légul et de Représentant Légal Suppléant de l‘association sans but lucratif dénomxée "ASSE‘MBLEE SPIRITUELLE NATIONAE DES BAHA’IS' DU BImUNDI", Messieurs Ildephonse MGISIIA 91; 081113 NIMPAGARITSE. Article 2 : .La présente ordonnance entre en Vigueur le jour de sa signature. l'ait a Bujumbura, 1e A L 1 AG, 1988

557

2. Approval of a legal representative Ofthe National Spiritual Assembly offhe Bahd ’z’s of

Burundi by the Minister of Justice, dated 12 October 1988.

[Page 558]

5 5 8 THE Bahá’í WORLD

.nu.

I

33% i ' 1»? ”hfiy ?EEPUBUQF: 153 ‘i‘alH‘bi‘ié’. Eit‘.':’-‘:."€®P?§s"i ”1.21! ETFQIC.‘ D5 4/1 "4‘5

....v... . .

. ., ("21 1'”. 'm. ..

' . ET} 5:: GET 8.].

,‘Coordtu

Enlmao"

Vista 1a eticién documentaQa promovida por Vd. en nombre y representaci n de la Asamblea r-‘spiritual de los Bahá’ís de / Guinea Ecuatorial, de feoha 21 de Enero filtimo, solicitando 1a EXENGION del page de la Contribuci6n Urbana de sus propiedados; vista, asimismo, el favorable informe emitido a1 respeoto or/ la Direccién General de Impuestos y Tesoro en su escrito numero 408, fechado e1 25 de los corrientes;

Este Ministerio de Finanzas en ejercicio de las prerrogativas que le estén'reoonocidas y en base a lo previsto en el / articulo 45, inciso b), del Decreto-Ley nfimero 1/1.986 de 10 / de Febrero, por el que se aprueba e1 Sistema Tributario de la Repfiblica de Guinea Ecuatorial, por resolucién de esta fecha / ha venido a bi n en acceder a su peticién y en su consecuencia concederle la EXENOION DEL PAGO DE LA CONTRIBUCION URBANA que solicita, toda vez que las fincas pertenecientes a Instituciones o Congregaciones Religiosas,'en‘tanto que no produzcan reg tas y se dediquen directamcnte a1 culto u obras benéficas es—tén exentor del pago del Impuesto que nos ocupa.

Malabo, 29‘d\\Abril de 1.986

POR UN? GdiNEA NEJQR, évflw-‘STRO,

v ‘ ?‘f’wp. __ R \. Uz/f

j

»‘:r _:fior FARJID MEIDANI, rmpresentante fie 1a nsamblea EspirituaL de los Bsha‘ av Guinea Ecuatorialo C I U D A D0 3. Letter dated 29 April 1986, from the Ministry of F inance oquuatorial Guinea recognizing the right Ofthe National Spiritual Assembly, as a religious organization, to be exemptfrom taxes.

[Page 559]

INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT Bahá’í ACTIVITIES 559

8“

'3 WWW

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

6' Z: . r 3‘2?" GOVERNMENT OF FIJI @ertigicate o} (pecognition o} a School

mug ['5 t0 QEBttifp that LOMAIVUNA BAHAI KINDERGARTEN

School under .....LOCAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHAIS 0F LOMAIVUNA E

as Controlling Authority has been recognised as a KINDERGARTEN

School under the provisions of the Education Act, to Conduct

courses for childrgn aged 3 to 6 years.

%,/;m

Permanent Secretary for Education

Date 52/ “41:12; 7

.........u.\........, ....................

Recognition No, ........

E13922

WWWWK

4. Certificate ofi'ecognition offhe Lomaivuna Bahá’í’ Kindergarten by the Ministry of Education offhe Government of F yz dated 21 August I 98 7.

[Page 560]560

MINISTERE DE L'ADMINISTRATION ‘ DU TERRITOIRE, DES COLLECTIVITES LOCALES ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

. DIRECTION GENERALE DE L'ADMINISTRATION DU TERRITOIRE

—~—_p-—_ N° Cuié (MATCLI/DGAT

THE Bahá’í WORLD

REPUBLIQUE GABONAISE Union—Travail-Justice

(_ IRCULAIRE

‘ LE MINISTRE D‘ETAT, MINISTRE DE LIADMINISTRATION DU TERRITOIRE, DES COLLECTIVITES LOCALES ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

A

Par décrets n° dissolution des Associat

MESSIEURS LES GOUVERNEURS

s OO709/PR/MID du 30 Mai 1970 il est porté ions dites "Temoins de Jéhovah " et

" Armée du Salut " et OO888/PR/MACTL/DGAT du 23 Mai 1985, celle des

Associations réligieuses ci-aprés désignées

o 0

Association ECKANKAR Boite Postale 3.767 Libreville. MIHIKARI, Filiale Gabonaise, Boite Postale 448 Libreville.

Eglise du Christianisme Céleste du Gabon, Boite Postale 14.190 Libreville.

L'Eglise Episcopale des Chérubins et des Séraphins du Nigéria Quartier Grande Poubelle Libreville.

L‘Associatioh de l'Ordre Souverain et Militaire du Temple de Jérusalem Libreville.

Or, i1 me revient que certaines autorités administratives

s

at militaires auraient interdit l'exervice de toute activité

a

l'Assemblée Spirituelle Nationale Des BAHA'IS du GABON et ce, certainement par confusion on mauvaise interprétation des textes

susvisés.

.../...

5. Circular Letterfiom the Minister for the Administration of the T erritories ofGabon dated 6 May 1987, stating that the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baht? ’z’s Of Gabon may carry out any activities (firstpage).

[Page 561]INTERNAUONALSURVEYOFCURRENTBAHAiACanUES 561

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF A SEPARATE BUILDING, BEING A PLACE OF PUBLIC RELIGIOUS WORSHIP, UNDER S. 27 OF THE MARRIAGES

(IRELAND) ACT, 1844

I, GORDON w. KERR JOHNSTON, Deputy: Registrar of the District of Dublin, do hereby certify that on the 9th day of May, 1988, the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Ireland, 24 Burlington Road., Dublin 4, was duly registered for the solemnisation of marriages therein, in the presence of the Registrar, by P. J. Kehoe, An tArd-Chlaraitheoir—Cunta, who

signed the requisite Certificate for that purpose.

Witness my hand this 8th day of September I 1938

6. Certificate dated 8 September 1988, duly registering the offices offlze National Spiritual Assembly offhe Bahd ’z’s oflreland as a place for the solemnisation ofmarriage.

[Page 562] 

562

THE Bahá’í WORLD

291 The Malafvi Gazette Supplement, dated 7th November, 1986, containing R 1 t' R 1 . 1 -~“~ . egu a was, 11 es, etc 4/}. CUN'WS‘X (No 35A) GOVERNMENT NOTICE No. 97 f l 311%. MARRIAGELjA ‘0 (CAP 25 .01) .\ 19" NOTICE ‘ ‘ _\ / IN EXERCISE of the powers conferred by section 6 of gtht: ‘ e NGWAZI

DR H.111» 1111211 BAND 1 Life President of Malawi, do hereby license Ethe 1111311319 entioned place of public wumhip for the celebration of marriages.

Baha’ 1 Teaching Institute

Amalika Village

Thyolo District

Title Deed No. 36643

Given under my hand this 29th day of October, 1986. . H. KAMUZU BANDA

(FILE NO. SUB. D. 25:01) Life President

GOVERNMENT NOTICE No. 98 MARRIAGE ACT (CAP. 25:01) NOTICE IN EXERCISE of the powers conferred by section 6 of the Marriage Act, I, NGWAZI

DR. H. KAMUZU BANDA, Life President of MalaWi, do hereby license the undermentioned place of public worship for the celebration of marriages.

Bahá’í Centre Plot No. CC 711 Limbs Given under my hand this 29th day of October, 1986. H. KAMUZU BANDA

(FILE NO. SUB. D. 25:01) Life President

GOVERNMENT NOTICE 1N0. 99 , PUBLIC HOLIDAYS ACT (CAP. 18:05)

PUBLIC HOLIDAYS (AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE) ORDER,198€

IN EXERCISE of the powers conferred by section 3 (1) of the Public Holidays Aet,1 NGW‘AZI D11. H. KM/mzu BANDA. Life President of MaIaWi, make the following Orderw

1. This Order may be cited as the Public Holidays (Amendment Citation of Schedule) Order, 1986.

2. The Schedule to the Public Holidays Act is amended by deleting Amendment the words "The first Monday in August" and substituting the words gchedule to “National Tree Planting Day (let December)”. Cap. 18:05

Made this 27th day of October, 1986.

H. KAMUZU BANDA (1:11.13 NO. 11/02/6) Life President

Printed and published by THE GOVERNMENT PRINTER, Zomba, MalaWi~90095

7. The Malawi Gazette Supplement, dated 7 November 1986, giving notice of the

licensing offhe Bahá’í' Centre in Limbe, and the Bahá’í' T eaching Institute in Amalika

Village, for the celebration ofmarriages.

[Page 563]

INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT Bahá’í ACTIVITIES 563

.mom Anmmmm 15w IwmmAL {awn uxn‘u. mmSK 111 11.011me 30 ILO 311m ISLAND, m1, mwmm ATOLL, 1.1111111. 131.3.

Agreement in ear moj kovappen 6 1m komonmon e ikotan party k0 amen : Iroij, Alap, Dri—jerbal" 1m daha'i Property Incorporate e0.

Jilldn eo naj kajerbala 9;} bear 110 watt) so irok in m amen in an k.g‘ Iri-Jappn xI‘O, ú1 bedr ion ene in Saute island, Iiwajaleiu atull, 110 Marshall Islands District.

133‘ komon Agreement in 110 vgwein in kalikare 13m ilal: a) me Bahá’í Property Incorporate enaj 401‘ cm marofi in kajerbale jik1n 1n kalikare ilen, in 33' kralok an konan uaj bar kajutali juon 1m 90 enaj Bahá’í Centre, ak jikin lcwelok 50 an Bahu' 1 1'0 110 Santo island.

b) Juon drattan rental eo kin kajerbale jikin in, enaj jerbal ekl‘ar 15011 $12.00 dollar ilo juon year. .3alxa'i Property Incorporate ej kalimur bwe enaj kolla dre‘btan in iuen Alap so an jikiu in 110 jinoin October in yea? otamjcj. Im {me drettan 60 an Izmir), enaj

square feet.

0) Bwe Baha' 1 Property eo ejjamfm nag) 1collaik drettan 111 110 jmflin aetok 10k jen, ak rumij lok jen ran in moj kajejjete ijin 13 en. He Baha'ii Property Imprporate ejjanin naj komone ijoko konan im naj rmuij in kolla 1 loan ji1u(3) allin k0, incm mamnak ro Maj wor air maron in 1133‘ ~{Zajeblak jikin in ma ibbeir 1m kajemlok loan am cement. in.

d) 1=§en in ikotan Iroij, Alap 1m Dri-jerbal ro ilo weto in muin ej bedr ie, in Bahá’í Property Incorporate en, en naj kin rououl-la‘ljm 23;) year kin naj juon karok eo nae naj bar kakkal 1m komnnmon 10k mw‘m ak bar karok ko jet ikotan party kein fion‘dron, 3m naj lcajerbal nunlok iloan bar 25 year manlok.

9) Im 110 an Party ko naj 109 bwe uawein kein ijin rejjamin naj 2L9). wot einwot karok kein, imam renaj bar marofi in komon jet lxarok k0 naj einjuon 10k jen uawein kein ilo agreement in, im raj kile bwfi Eamon 10k.

Baha' i Property Incorporate eo elikin an naj komonmon lok jiliin in is” kajutak Centre do is, inau naj kwuelim an jabrewot drolul k0 an jabrewot kajjojo naj kajerbale ,jikin in ikijien kowormaanlok bedr k0 air, ijellnkin k0 Bej ikijien bar kabufi k0 jet.

mcmmmr in ear 11153 an wappen im komonmon e ien in kalikare ijin iber. rein rej uwan party k0 in drodr air jain ijin ilal 10k.

h

Kadrelofié' raininw '

.’ :7 / , ’. / .0" 5/ (I g?! “QM" akma I(a ua - Ir 1;) Véop Wrty Ifico ISSEQEe , ' $41112 M/x/M,

J . Anltak 7/11‘1a'p21;

(/ » ' Top ‘zijerbalyf "r

unvvl'vn urn... un- uula: «'51:!

5891‘. CLERK OF COURTS

8. Rental agreement between the Bahá’í' Property Incorporate and three individuals filed with the Clerk ofCourts 0n the Island ofSanto, Kwajalein Atoll, in the Marshall Islands on 14 November 1986, of a property for a Bahá’í' Centre.

[Page 564]5 64 THE Bahá’í WORLD

(Eommonmealtb of the fiortbem Matiana 3151511115

mica 0? mar: supmmamnguc 05%;:szsz e)? EDHCMIQN SAIPAN, cm 96950

Plume: 9812/9823/9827/9311

% Cable Afifiress: 0 vttmbw” 30‘ 19.37 cm). NIIII saman Q

0 Patricia Cantata

O Egcrg}.73ru o x 3 a Na tihnat “Imigii ~E;r:mhl';1

r'ta award»:

1

r0. 53X 20230

K 01th»: Eeha'imttte 6 131‘1F.C-iuam 9632}

A.

In z‘espmse to ytnr lett : date 3/40 37 35:121. amusing students of the Bahá’í' religious faith on certain E-ahai Holy Da {5 plea eace be advised that the Board of Education has. adapted a aches} caienflar that eno3mpas:es 13" days of instruction without regard to rettgious hottda/a, except Chr‘iatmas 3nd Goad Trice

I)

n]! u n

W: enever a student mi= aschc-ol day for a jus ttt‘iabte and excusehte reason. the parent ‘5 rescohznbts rer pm him that eache r thh a writ ten note explaining the absence. Studenta are required to. matte up 311 work for excused abzences.

Eahet‘Hoh/Davs (.131 m H: 'ctto.~1ng‘ch days;

Octet er 2O Apri129 Novemoer 12 May 2 April 2] May 23

While. teachers may consider these day: as amused absences for certain students of the Bahá’í' fazthfi M'ulct. L22 you and 3H parent: to note that seven "holidays' constitute 3 sign it‘icant number and wutd represent 3 Mn abzentee rate.

Ev Boatd 3f Ejucati :zn pom . stuuente Who accumulate 35 or more absences in a sch -ot year mcw not pas: to the ne<tgr radr: tevet.

' am “r“r'd mg a mpy at vhtt 5611— :r 16 at}: chm] principats so that thev mayp ass. th‘s informatten abo ut Baha x Holy Day: on to their teachers. 1

3 i ntere'mu

Henr/I Saman Super ntenCem 01 E31375: ion

cc: Schooi Prmmpais

9. Letter dated 10 September I 98 7 from the Department ofEducation for the Commonwealth offhe Northern Mariana Islands recognizing Bahá’í' Holy Days as days when children may be excusedfi‘om classes.

[Page 565]INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT Bahá’í ACTIVITIES 565

EU BE IQSJnD IN THE HEXT GAZETTE OF PAKISTAN<BAR”.III).

N0.F.1(64)MA/POL/86~Reoons) GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN MLNISTRY UF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS AND MINORITIES AFFALRS

Islamabad, the 27th January. 1988.

O,.\ ' 040:;

(D

ctt- ADVISORY COJNCIL FUR MINuRITKBS AFFAIRS.

In continuation of this Ministry's notification of even number dated 26th October, 1987; Mr. Israr Hussein Siddiqui, Bhai fia'gwnKareohi, is appointed as non-oi’ficial member of the Advisory Council for Minorities Affairs against the seat fallen Vacant due to death of Mr. Uttam Chand of Quetta.

5,157.4 ( R80 Fazal Khan Akhtar ) Joint Seoretary(M)

The Manager, Printing Corporation of Pakistan Press,

Karachi; ._..._.‘.

Copy is forwarded to. 1) Mr. Israr Hussein Siddiqui, President National Spirtual of Assembly of Bhai's of Pakistan, Bhai's Hall, Karachi—B.

sz/kr. M.P. Bhandara, MNA, No.1, National Park Road, Rawalpindi.

3) P.S to Minister for Religious Affairs and Minorities Affairs, Islamabad.

r Jl‘ [ht I) k// ( R80 Fazal Khan Akhtar )

10. Notification by the Government ofPakistan ’S Ministry ofReligious Aflairs and Minority Aflairs on 27 January 1988 offlze appointment ofa Bahá’í' 0n the Advisory Council for Minorities Aflairs.

[Page 566]5 66 THE Bahá’í WORLD

v vwv v w "W vv‘rv WWva—V ' vvvvvvvv

, v y. “M

£3, ' ‘ t ’1 INDEPENDENT STATE -j@— OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA j

'1 mnua-v". ‘

EDUCATION ACT 1983

2 CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

f OF PERMITTED SCHOOL

‘3 THIS IS 10 CERTIFY THAT‘.g5‘15'.1.§w9¥.c.3§?3§ .......... SCHOOL E 1 HAS BEEN REGISTERED AS A PERMITTED SCHOOL UNDER 1 THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 100 OF THE EDUCATION ACT 1983, 1 CONDITION. ....... HIGH. SCHOOL ........................ ‘ .................. , L REGISTRATION N0. . ?Ssfifi/fli ....... ‘ , ‘A - , ES 1 / %&L/ n DATED 14‘ Noxemlzex ...... 13..8§ ...... 1 DEPARTMENT HEAD .{ q } L “g, '3‘ .u'".. A L-A 1A-; .XYV'JA..AI. A ‘:-:-AA--- AKA: AfILllAA‘S—‘YIIAIA'Z

1 1. Certificate ofRegistration of a Permitted School in Papua New Guinea dated 14 November 1 986 for the Bahá’í' Study Centre to operate as a high school.

[Page 567]

INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT Bahá’í ACTIVITIES

NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY of the BAHA’iS of the PHILIPPINES, 1N<:.

REGISTER N0 ......................

MARRIAGE CONTRACT

Fit)v or Municipality of .................. , Province of ................................... .

HUSBAND WIFE

Contracting Parties

(a) Age

(b) Nationality

(c) Residence

Singte, widowed or divorced

Father

Nationality " Mother

Nationality Witnesses

D ’4 e

Persons who gave consent or advice

(a) R '"‘

(b) Relation to contracting party

Bahá’í' Center of

Place of marriage House of .................................................... Barrio 0r barangay of

Date of marriage ....................... Officiatea' by ....................................

Legalizing Officer for Bahá’í marriages in the Philippines with residence at ........................

....................................................................................

I, ................................................. on the date and at the place above given, of our own free will and accord, and in the presence of the person appointed by the NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHA'IS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC'with license to officiate this marriage and of the two witnesses named below, both of age, take each other as husband and wife after uttering the sacred verse:

“WE WILL ALL, VERILY, ABIDE BY THE WILL OF GOD. ”

And I, ......................................................... , Bahá’í’Marriage Officer, CERTIFY: That on the date and at the place above written the aforesaid ........................... ........................................ and were with their mutual consentjoined together in marriage in accordance with the Laws ofBAHA’j FAITH in the presence of said witnesses, both of age; and I further certify that the Marriage License No .......... issued at ............................................................................. on. . . . . . . . . . . . ., 1.9 ...... in favor ofsaid parties was exhibited to me; and that consent or advzce to such marriage was duly given as required by Baha’ 1 law, by the [wing parents above mentioned

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we signed, (or marked with our fingerprint) this certificate in quadmplicarc this .............. day of ............................ 19 .......

(MM 1 M 111111;; Officer) Date Issued ..............

WITNESSES

License No: ............. Exp. Date: .............

12. Marriage contract of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís offhe Philippines which was approved by the Government in 1987.

567

[Page 568]5 68 THE Bahá’í WORLD

. ypuaqf/(WWV NJ

'Jfin nu If" u Form 802 amount by lug. mm. (Rub a)

REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA , ORS/102/65/502 THE SOCIETIES RULES

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

BAHA'I FAITH (ZAMBIA) WILLIAM

I 11mm.“ onmrmv that

MNUTHE MASELTHA BAHA’I INSTITUTE — KABWE RURAL DISTRICT.

has this day been registered under section 7 (l) of the Societies Act.

Dated at LUSAKA thin 5933 day of OCTOBER 1 1988

G. K. RegwtrarafSomtm ............... Telephone No.: LUSAKA 52198 FILE REF. 0113/ 6 n 2 Tan REGISTRAR 33$ 234c15241523 Sir/Mndam, P.0. Box 1862, Lvsm

THE SOCIETIES ACT I forward herewith a Certificate of Registration for your society. 2. I take this opportunity of drawing your attention to the salient requirements of the Act and the Rules; these are:

(1) To keep one or more books of account showing details of all moneys received and payments made by the society (rule 3).

(2) To keep a. register of member: showing tho full name and address of each member, the date on which each member was admitted to membership and the date on which each member terminated such membership (rule 4).

(3) To submit to the Registrar of your district, that is your District Secretary, an annual return in duplicate on Form 809 not later than the 31st March of each year (rule 16).

(4) To give notice to the Registrar of your district. that is your District Secretary, in duplicate on Form 808 within fourteen days, of any change of office bearer (rule 15).

(5) To notify the Registrar of your district, that is your District Secretary, in duplicate on Form SO? Within a. month, of any change inone society's name or ofany of the provisions of its constitution or rules or of any addition or decrease on its objects, or if it becomes a branch of or affiliated to or con. nected with any organisation or group of a political nature established outside the country (section 15).

(6) To notify the Registrar of your district, that is your District Secretary, in duplicate on Form 807 of any change of a society’s postal address of or the situation of its registered office (section 32).

(7) To supply any of the information the Registrar may require under section 17 or 18 or rule 19.

F orms 807, 8 and 9 can be obtained from the District Secretary of the district in which a. society's effices are situated. I am, Sir/Mndam, THE CH A1 RMAN ‘ Your obedient servaut, ................................

.............................................

HQaK: .0 .‘WSTRY OF H ‘ \\~“ V . "an HR)

. /’

M. 39.x 5.94.61: ....... , -50cr ........ mam \ \\ 193?}«(6’ ................ u............... ’ \93»::;’)-.v: ummomo

__/,k

13. Certificate ofRegistration by the Republic onambz'a offhe William Mmuthe Maselt/za Bahá’í Institute, dated 5 October 1988.

[Page 569]

INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT Bahá’í ACTIVITIES 569

14. F irst Day Cover of a commemorative stamp issued by the Government of Western Samoa for Christmas 1988. T here are four stamps in this series, the $2. 00 stamp having the picture of the House of Worship in Apia.

[Page 570]5 70 THE Bahá’í WORLD

I 5. The Postal Department in India has depicted the House of Worship in New Delhi on a postage stamp to mark the Diamond Jubilee of that city. The Maghriqu ’l-Ag’hkdr is featured on one oftwo stamps which portray well—known buildings in India ’5 capital; October 1991.

[Page 571]

INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT Bahá’í ACTIVITIES

4. THE GERMAN COURT’S LEGAL RECOGNITION OF ASSEMBLY STATUS

Department of the Secretariat 27 May 1991 To all National Spiritual Assemblies Dear Bahá’í Friends,

Decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court

In the Riḍván message of the Universal House of Justice, reference was made to an extremely significant decision of the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany. Since this decision may be of assistance to National Spiritual Assemblies in other countries Where difficulties are experienced in obtaining recognition for the Faith, or Where the Spiritual Assemblies meet With complications in acquiring legal incorporation, the House of Justice has instructed us to send you the enclosed three documents:

1. The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, in German

2. A translation of this decision into English

3. An elucidation of the abbreviations used in the above

4. A brief outline of the background to the decision and indications of its importance,

drawing on an article by Dr. Udo Schaefer published in “Bahá’í Nachrichten” (the newsletter of the German Bahá’í community).

We should mention that it proved very difficult indeed to translate the decision into English, since the forms and concepts of German Law differ radically from those of English Law. There is often, therefore, no exact equivalence of terminology. Nevertheless, the English translation is sufficiently faithful as to convey a clear impression of the original. With loving Bahá’í greetings,

For Department of the Secretariat

cc: International Teaching Centre Boards of Counsellors

[Page 572]5 72 THE Bahá’í WORLD

Leitsiitze

zum BeschluB des Zweiten Senats vom 5. Februar 1991 —- 2 BVR 263/86 1. Allein die Behauptung und das Selbstverst'eindxfis, cine Gemeinschaft bekenne sich zu einer Religion und sei cine Religionsgemeinschaft, k61men fiir diese und ihre Mitglieder die Berufung auf die Freiheitsgew'eihrleistung des Art. 4 Abs. 1 und 2 GG nicht rechtfertigen; Vielmehr muB es sich auch tats‘eichlich, nach geistigem Gehalt und 'eiufierem Erscheinungsbild, um cine Religion und Religionsgemeinschaft handeln. Dies im Streitfall zu prfifcn und zu entscheiden, obliegtu-als Anwendung einer Regelung der staatlichen Rechtsordnung—den staatlichen Organen, letztlich den Gerichten.

2. a) Zur Religionsfreiheit im Sinne des Art. 4 Abs. 1 und 2 GG gehért auch die religifise Vereinigungsfreiheit, Wie sic sich aus dieser Bestimmung in Verbindung mit den einschl'zigigen, dutch Art. 140 GG einbezogenen Weimarer Kirchenartikeln ergibt.

b) Der Gewéihrleistungsinhalt der religibsen Vereinigungsfreiheit umfaBt die Freiheit, aus gemeinsamem Glauben sich zu einer Religionsgesellschaft zusammenzuschliefien und zu organisieren. Damit ist kein Anspruch auf cine bestimmte Rechtsform gemeint, etwa die des rechtsfzihigen Vereins odsr einer sonstigen Form der juristischen Person; gew'eihrleistet ist die Méglichkeit einer irgendwie gearteten rechtlichen Existenz einschlieBlich der Teflnahme am allgemeinen Rechtsverkehr.

[Page 573]

INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT Bahá’í ACTIVITIES 573

BUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHT — 2 BVR 263/86 1M NAMEN DES VOLKES

In dem Verfahren fiber die Verfassungsbeschwerden

1. (163 “Geistigen Rat der Bahá’í in Tfibingen mit Sitz in Tiibingen”, vertr. dutch den Vorsitzenden, Harm S...,

2. des Herrn S ...,

3. der Frau S ...,

4. der Frau S

— Bevollm’cichtigte: Rechtsanwéilte Dr. Michae1 Uechtritz, Dr. Hans Schlarmann, Birkenwaldstrafie 149, Stuttgart 1 gegen a) den BeschluB des Ober1andesgerichts Stuttgart vom 27. Januar 1986 — 8 W 252/85 —, b) den BeschluB des Landgerichts ,Tfibingen vom 8. Mai 1985 —- 5 T 34/84 (FGG) ~, 0) die Beschh’isse des Amtsgerichts Tiibingen vom 8. Dezember 1983 und vom 2. Januar 1984 - GReg. 11922/83 hat das Bundesverfassungsgericht — Zweiter Senat —— unter Mitwirkung der Richter Vizepr'eisident Mahrenholz, Bbckenférde, Klein, Grthof, Kruis, FranBen, Kirchhof, Winter

am 5. Februar 1991 bescblossen:

Die Beschh'isse des Oberlandesgerichts Stuttgart vom 27. Januar 1986 — 8 W 252/85 —, des Landgerichts Tfibingen vom 8. Mai 1985 ~ 5 T 34/ 84 (F GG) — und des Amtsgerichts Tiibingen vom 8. Dezember 1983 und vom 2. J anuar 1984 — GReg. II 922/ 83 — verletzen die Beschwerdefiihxer in ihrem Grundrecht‘ aus Artikel 4 Absatz 1 und 2 des

Grundgesetzes. Sic werden aufgehoben. Die Sacha 'Wird an das Amtsgericht zuu'ickverwiesen.

Das Land Baden—Wfirttemberg hat den Beschwerdeffihrem die notwendigen Auslagen zu erstatten.

[Page 574]5 74 THE Bahá’í WORLD

Griinde: A.

Gegenstand der Verfassungsbeschwerden ist die Frags, Wiewei’t es Art. 4 Abs. 1 und 2 GG gebietet, bei der Auslegung und Anwendung vereinsrechflicher Vorschriften des Bfirgerlichen Gesetzbuchs die Eigenart eines religibsen Vereins zu beriicksichtigen, der sich als Teilgliederung einer Religionsgemeinschaft versteht und organisiert.

I.

Die Religionsgemeinschaft der Bahá’í, einer aus dem schiitischen Islam entstandenen Glaubensrichtung, ist in einer Vielzahl V011 Léindern vertreten. Sie ist hierarchisch gegliedert und Wird derzeit dutch das aus neun gewéihlten Mitgliedern bestehende “Universa1e Haus der Gerechtigkeit” mit Sitz in Haifa, Israel) geleitet. In Léndem mit einer gréfieren Anzahl von Ortsgemeinden wird jéihrlich von der Gesamtheit der Mitglieder ein neunképfiger Nationaler Geistiger Rat in indirekter Wahl gewéihlt. Dieser ist in der Bundesrepubh'k Deutschland als eingetragener Verein enichtet; in anderen Staaten bedient er sich entsprechend den dort geltenden Gesetzen anderer vereins— Oder gesellschaftsrechtlicher Rechtsformen. A18 Leitungsorgane auf artlicher Ebene warden von den Gl'aubigen der 6rtlichen Gemeinde ebenfalls aus neun Mitgliedern bestehende firtliche Geistige Rate gew’dhlt, die fi‘ir die Regelung der értlichen Belange zustéindig sind.

II.

1. Der Beschwerdefiihrer zu 2) ist Vorsitzender, die Beschwerdefiihrer zu 3) und 4) waren weitere Vorstandsmitglieder des Beschwerdeffihrers zu 1). Am 14. Februar 1983 meldete der Beschwerdeffihrer zu 2) als Vorsitzender des Vorstandes beim Amtsgericht Tiibingen den Beschwerdeffihrer zu 1) zur Eintragung in das Vereinsregister an. Die dem Antrag zugrundeliegende Satzung enthéilt folgende, hier bedeutsame Vorschriften:

Artikel 2

Zweck des Vereins

1 Der Zweck des Geistiges Rates der Bahá’í in Tfibingen ist die Verwaltung aller Ange1egenheiten der Bahá’í-Gemeinde in Tubingen nach den Lehren und Velwaltungsgrundséitzen der Bahá’í-Religion, Wie sic sich aus dem der Satzung anschlieBenden Anhang ergeben.

II Der Geistige Rat verfolgt danach ausschlieBlich und unmittelbar gemeinnfitzige, mildtéitige und religiése Zwecke im Sinne des Abschnitts “Steuerbegfinstigte Zwecke” der Abgabenordnung.

III Der Geistige Rat ist selbstlos téitig und verfolgt keine eigenwirtschaftlichen Zwecke.

Artike1 3

Entstchung der Mitgliedschaft

I _

11 Die Mitglieder des Geistigen Rates werden von den wahlberechtigten Mitgliedem der Bahá’í-Gemeinde aus deren Mitte in geheimer Wahl mit einfacher Stimmenmehrheit fiir die Dauer 611168 J ahxes, léingstens bis zur Wahl ihrer Nachfolger,

[Page 575]

INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT Bahá’í ACTIVITIES 575

bemfen. Diese Wahl findet am 21. April eines j eden Jahres auf der J ahrestagung der Bahá’í-Gemeinde statt. Das N'eihere regelt Artikel 10. HI

Artikel 4 Beendigung der Mitgliedschaft I Die Mitgliedschaft Wird beendet durch Zeitablauf und Neuwahl des Geistigen Rates, durch Austritt, durch AusschluB, durch Ausscheiden aus der Bahá’í-Gemeinde Tiibingen. II Der AusschluB eines Mitgliedes des Geistigen Rates feillt in die Zust'aindigkeit des Nationalen Geistigen Rates der Bahá’í in Deutschland e.V.

Artikel 5

Nachwahl

I Ausfallende Mitglieder des Geistigen Rates werden auf einer zu diesem Zwecke durch den Geistigen Rat ordnungsgeméifl einberufenen, besonderen Versammlung der Bahá’í-Gemeinde dutch Wahl ergéinzt. Solange die Zahl der Mitglieder des Geistigen Rates nicht unter 5 herabsinkt, bleibt seine BeschluBfeihigkeit erhalten.

II Falls die Zahl der ausfallenden Mitglieder héher als vier ist, so daB der Geistige Rat nicht mehr be'schlufifahig ist, wird die Wahl unter der Aufsicht des Nationalen Geistigen Rates vorgenommen.

Afiikel 9

Mitgliederversammlung

I

11 A116 folgenden Sitzungen werden dutch den Sekret‘eir des Geistigen Rates auf Antrag des Vorsitzenden Oder bei dessen Verhinderung des stellvertretenden Vorsitzenden Oder auf Antrag dreier Mitglieder des Rates formlos (schriftlich, telefonisch Oder miindlich) einberufen Oder dutch Beschlufi des Rates im voraus festgelegt.

III IV

Artikel 11 Der Nationals Geistige Rat I Die allen Geistigen Réiten in der Bundesrepubhk vorgeordnete Institution ist der Nationale Geistige Rat der Bahá’í in Deutschland e.V. Er entscheidet a) und b) ...; 0) fiber die Zust'eindigkeit eines értlichen Geistigen Rates; d) bis f) V r

Artikel 13

Satzungséinderungen

I

H Satzungséinderungen bedfirfen der Genehmigung des Nationalen Geistigen Rates der Bahá’í in Deutschland e.V. Sic werden Wirksam mit der Eintragung in das Vereinsregister.

[Page 576]5 7 6 THE Bahá’í WORLD

Artikel 14 Auflésung I Die Auflbsung des Geistigen Rates kann erfolgen a) aufgmnd eines mit absoluter Stimmenmehrheit gefaBten Beschlusses der Ratsmitgheder in einer ausschlieBlich zu diesem Zweck einberufenen Mitgliederversammlung, b) dutch einen mit absoluter Stimmenmehrheit getroffenen BeschluB des Nationalen Geistigen Rates. 11 B61 Auflbsung des Geistigen Rates W11‘d dessen Vermégen dem Nationalen Geistigen Rat der Bahá’í in Deutschland e.V. fibereignet, der es unmittelbar und ausschlieBlich ffir gemeinniitzige, mi1dtétige und religiése Zwecke zu verwenden hat.

2. Das Amtsgericht Wies im Eintragungsverfahren auf rechtliche Bedenken formeller und materieller Art hin und forderte zur Abhilfe auf. Dem Beschwerdeffihrer 211 1) ermangle es insbesondere an der erforderlichen rechtlichen Selbstéindigkeit, weil er in seinem Bestand einerseits von der 6rtlichen Gemeinde, andererseits vom Nationalen Geistigen Rat abh'eingig sei. Die Beschwerdefiihrer machten demgegeniiber geltend, der institutionelle Aufbau der weltweiten Bahá’í-Gemeinschaft beruhe auf einem géttlichen Stiftungsakt und kénne von ihnen nicht geéindert werden. Da nach dem Verfassungsrecht der Bahá’í 21116 Jurisdiktionsgewalt bei den gewéihlten Kérperschaften liege, mfiBten diese Rechtsfeihigkeit erlangen, um im Rechtsverkehr t'eitig werden zu kénnen. Den Eintragungsantrag wies das Amtsgericht mit BeschluB vom 8. Dezember 1983, cine waitere Anmeldung vom 22.12.1983 mit Beschlufi vom 2. Januar 1984 zurfick.

3. Die sofortige Beschwerde der Beschwerdefiihrer zu 2) bis 4) gegen die Beschh'isse des Amtsgerichts vom 8. Dezember 1983 und 2. Januar 1984 W1€S das Landgericht am 8. Mai 1985 als unbegriindet zuriick. Die vorgelegte Vereinssatzung verstoBe gegen § 37 Abs. 1 BGB sowie gegen den Grundsatz der Vereinsautonomie. Art. 9 Abs. 2 der Satzung, der die Voraussetzungen fiir die Einberufung einer Mitgliedewersammlung regle, werde dem dutch § 37 Abs. 1 BGB geforderten Schutz der Minderheit nicht gerecht. Die Gesetzesvorschrift verlange, die Zah1 der Mitglieder, auf deren Antrag cine Mitghederversammlung einzuberufen sci, anteilsméBig festzusetzen, damit auch kfinftigen Anderungen der Stéirke des Vereins Rechnung getragen werde. Die Mitgliederzah1 des Vereins kénne bis auf fiinf herabsinken, ohne daB BeschluBunfzihigkeit eintrete. In diesem Fall repr'eisentiere die in Art. 9 Abs. 2 vorgesehene Zahl von drei Mitgliedem keine Minderheit mehr.

Vor allem aber enthalte die Satzung Regelungen, die cine organisationsrechtliche Abh'eingigkeit des Vereins von Dritten herbeiffihrten und deshalb mit dem Gmndsatz der Selbstéindigkeit und Se1bstverwa1tung von Vereinen unvereinbar seien. Dutch Art. 4 Abs. 2, 11 Abs. 1, 13 Abs. 2, 14 Abs. 1 Buchst. b und durch waitere Bestimmungen solle einerseits dem Nationalen Geistigen Rat als Nichtvereinsmitglied das Entscheidungsrecht fiber den AusschluB V011 Mitgliedern, Satzungséinderungen, Vereinsauflésung und andere Vereinsbelange fibertragen werden; andererseits S0116 nach Art. 3 Abs. 2 und 4 Abs. 1 die Bahá’íGemeinde dutch Wahlen iiberdeanrwerb und die Dauer der Mitgliedschaft bestimmen. Ein derart umfassender FremdeinfluB auf die Organisation eines Vereins sei unzul’aissig.

4. Das Ober1andesgericht Stuttgart W1CS die sofortige Weitere Beschwerde def Beschwerdefiihl‘er zu 2) bis 4) mit BeschluB vom 27. Januar 1986 (OLGZ 1986, S. 257) 2113 unbegn'indet zuriick. Art. 9 Abs. 2 der Satzung verletze § 37 Abs. 1 BGB, W611 fiir cine mégliche Andemng der Mitghederzahl nicht Sichergestellt sci, daB die Einberufung der Mitgliederversanmflung auf Verlangen einer Minderheit zu erfolgen habe. Die Satzung sci

[Page 577]

INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT Bahá’í ACTIVITIES 577

fiberdies mit dem Grundsatz der Selbstéindigkeit und Selbstverwaltung des Vereins (Vereinsautonomic) nicht vereinbar. Art. 14 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, wonach der Nationals Geistige Rat den Verein auflbsen kénne, verstofie gegen § 41 BGB. ES 361 nicht zul'eissig, einem aufienstehenden Dritten das Recht zu fibertragen, den Verein gegen den Willem seiner Mitglieder aufzulésen. Soweit die Rechtsprechung solche Bestimmungen vereinzelt als Statthaft angesehen habe (KG, DJ 1936, S. 1948; OLG Karlsmhe, JW 1936, S. 3266; OLG Stuttgart, Das Recht 1936, Sp. 151), seien die Entscheidungen in nationalsozialistischer Zeit ergangen und fiberzeugten in der Begriindung nicht. Die in Art. 3 Abs. 2 und Art. 4 Satz 1 der Satzung vorgesehene Wahl der Mitglieder dutch die Bahá’í-Gemeinde verstoBe gegen die §§ 38 und 58 Nr. 1 BGB. Zwar ktinne die Form des Beitritts eines neuen Mitglieds und die Aufnahmeerkléimng in der Satzung beliebig geregelt und die Mitgliedschaft an bestimmte Voraussetzungen gekm’ipft warden. Es mfisse jedoch grundséitzh'ch dem Verein freistehen, ob er j emanden als Mitglied aufnehmen wolle, sofern er nicht ausnahmsweise als existenzWichtiger Verein mit Monopolstellung zur Aufnahme V011 Mitgliedem- verpflichtet sei. Abgesehen von diesen Einzelbestimmungen ergebe das Gesamtbild der Satzung einen so starken FremdeinfluB, daB von einem eigenverantwortlichen Handeln des Vereins nicht mehr die Rede sein kénne. Hierbei seien die Einwirkungsrechte des Nationalen Geistigen Rates nach Art. 4 Abs. 2 (AusschluB eines Mitgheds), Art. 11 Abs. 1 Buchst. c (Entscheidungsbefugnis fiber die Zusté'mdigkeit), Art. 13 Abs. 2 (Genehmigungsvorbehalt fur Satzungs'eindemngen) und Art. 14 Abs. 2 (Ubergang des Verméigens bei Vereinsauflésung auf den Nationalen Geistigen Rat) von Bedeutung. Die Satzung enthalte einen Verzicht auf die Vereinsautonomie, der mit dem geltenden Vereinsrecht nicht vereinbar sci.

III.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerden richten sich gegen die Beschh'isse des Oberlandesgerichts und des Landgerichts sowie—bei sachgerechter Auslegung der VerfassungsbeschwerdeSchrift—gegen beide Beschlfisse des Amtsgerichts. Die Beschwerdefiihrer haben hierzu ein Gutachten von Prof. Dr. Friedrich Mfiller vorgelegt und machen im wesenthchen geltend:

1. Die Verfassungsbeschwerden seien zuléissig. Das erforderliche Rechtsschutzinteresse sei gegeben. Dem stehe nicht entgegen, daB die Zuriickweisung des Eintragungsantrags auch auf cine Beanstandung (163 Art. 9 Abs. 2 der Satzung, zu dessen Anderung die Beschwerdeffihrer bereit scien, gestiitzt worden sei. Wiirde der Antrag nach der Andemng dieser Satzungsbestimmung emeut gesteflt, so Wiirde er wegen der anderen vom Oberlandesgericht beanstandeten Satzungsbestimmungen Wieder abgelehnt warden, wobei voraussich’dich keine neue Sachpriifung stattfeinde.

2. Das Oberlandesgericht habe das Vereinsrecht des Bfirgerlichen Gesetzbuchs unrichtig ausgelegt und hierbei insbesondere Inhalt und Tragweite der Art. 4 Abs. 1 und 2, Art. 140 GG in Verbindung mit Art. 137 Abs. 3, 4 WRV verkannt.

a) Entgegen der Auffassung des Ober1andesgerichts hindere § 41 Abs. 1 BGB nicht daran, das Recht, den Verein aufzu16sen, auf einen Dritten zu fibertragen. Dies gelte jedenfalls dalm, wenn auch die Mitgiiederversamnflung diese Befugnis habe. Die Satzungsbestimmungen fiber die Wahl der Vereihsmitglieder dutch die Bahá’í—Gemeinde und deren Ausscheiden infolge Neuwahl seien mit §§ 38 und 58 BGB vereinbar. Wie sich aus den §§ 25 und 40 BGB ergebe, stelle es das staatliche Recht in das Belieben des Vereins, derartige Regelungen zu treffen. Aus dem Bfirgerlichen Gesetzbuch kbnnten auch keine Bedenken hergeleitet werden gegen die Kompetenz des Nationalen Geistigen Rates zum AusschluB eines Mitglieds des firtlichen Geistigen Rates (A11. 4 Abs. 2 der Satzung) und zur

[Page 578]5 78 THE Bahá’í WORLD

Bestimmung von dessen Zusténdigkeit (Art. 11 Abs. 1 Buchst. c) sowie gegen die in Art. 13 Abs. 2 vorgesehene Genehmigungspflicht fiir Satzungséinderungen und die Ubertragung des Verméigens des Geistigen Rates bei dessen Aufliisung auf den Nationalen Geistigen Rat (Art. 14 Abs. 2). Insgesamt lieBen die vom Oberlandesgericht beanstandeten Satzungsbestimmungen keinen unzuléissigen FremdeinfluB auBenstehender Dritter auf den Beschwerdefiihrer zu 1) zu. Dessen Einbindung in den hierarchischen Aufbau der Religionsgemeinschaft der Bahá’í sei zwingend durch deren Grundsiitze und Prinzipien vorgegeben, die auf géttlicher Offenbarung beruhten.

b) Die Versagung der Rechtsfahigkeit verletze den Beschwerdefiihrer zu 1) in seinen Grundrechten aus Art. 4 Abs. 1 und 2 GG und verstoBe gegen Art. 140 GG in Verbindung mit Art. 137 Abs. 3 und 4 WRV. Von diesen Verfassungsbestimmungen sei auch der organisatorische Aufbau der Religionsgesellschaft erfaBt einschliefilich des Rechts, fur ein gemeindliches Leitungsorgan die Rechtsfeihigkeit anzustreben. Ffir das hier maBgebliche Selbstverstéindnis der Bahá’í sei es unabdingbar, daB die Leitungsorgane der firtlichen Gemeinden, nicht aber die Gemeinden selbst, Rechtsfeihigkeit erlangen. Das Grundgesetz réume in Art. 140 GG in Verbindung mit Art. 137 Abs. 2 bis 5 WRV den Religionsgemeinschaften ein grundséitzliches Wahlrecht in bezug auf die Rechtsform ein. Nachdem den Bahá’í der angestrebte Status einer Kdrperschaft des 6ffent1ichen Rechts versagt werde, mfisse dem Beschwerdefiihrer zu 1) die Rechtsfdhigkeit nach bfirgerlichem Recht zuerkannt werden. Selbst wenn die vom Oberlandesgericht gefundene Auslegung des Vereinsrechts fiir nichtreligiése Vereine zutreffen sollte, wirke sie sich auf den Beschwerdefiihrer zu 1) aufgrund seiner religiésen Zielsetzung und der daraus zwingend folgenden Einbindung in die nationale und internationals Ordnung der Bahá’í héirter aus als aufjene und k6nne daher fiir ihn nicht gelten.

Die Beschwerdefiihrer zu 2) bis 4) seien als Vorstandsmitglieder des Beschwerdefiihrers zu 1) in ihrem dutch Art. 4 Abs. 2 GG geschfitzten Recht auf Wahmehmung religionsgesellschaftlicher (Leitungs-)Aktivit'eiten verletzt.

IV.

Zu der Verfassungsbeschwerde haben sich der Bundesminister der Justiz und das Ministerium fiir Justiz, Bundes- und Europaangelegenheiten Baden-Wfirttemberg ge'eiuBert. Beide halten die Verfassungsbeschwerde fiir unbegrfindet.

1. Der Bundesminister der Justiz tréigt vor, aus Art. 4 Abs. 2 und Art. 140 GG in Verbindung mit Art. 137 Abs. 3 WRV kénne nicht unmittelbar unter Berufung auf die Glaubensinhalte der Bahá’í-Religion ein Anspruch auf Erlangung der Rechtsfahigkeit fiir den Beschwerdefiihrer zu 1) hergeleitet werden. Art. 4 Abs. 2 GG verpflichte den Staat zur Respektierung des Glaubens und zum Schutz der Religionsausfibung, nicht aber zur Schaffung rechtlicher Regelungen, die den j eweiligen Glaubensinhalten einzelner Religionsgesellschaften entspréichen. Fraglich sei bereits, ob Art. 137 Abs. 3 WRV den Erwerb der Rechtsfa'higkeit durch den Beschwerdefiihrer zu 1) fiberhaupt erfasse; Art. 137 Abs. 4 WRV, der auf den Beschwerdefiihrer zu 1) als bloBer Untergliederung einer Religionsgemeinschaft allerdings nicht unmitfelbar anwendbar sei, treffe n’amlich gerade ffir diesen Bereich cine ausdrfickliche Regelung. J edenfalls kbnne der Geistige fiat die Rechtsfeihigkeit nur nach den allgemeinen Vorschriften des bfirgerlichen Rechtes erlangen; geringere Anforderungen, als sie Art. 137 Abs. 4 WRV fiir die Eintragung einer Religionsgesellschaft als Verein stelle, kénnten insoweit nicht gelten. Die Gerichte batten bei ihrer Entscheidung fiber die Eintragung des Beschwerdefiihrers zu 1) Bedeutung und Tragweite des Art. 140 GG in Verbindung mit Art. 137 Abs. 3 und 4 WRV nicht verkannt.

[Page 579]INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT Bahá’í ACTIVITIES 57 9

2. Nach Auffassung des Ministers fiir Justiz, Bundes— und Europaangelegenheiten BadenWfirttemberg verstofit die Satzung nicht nur gegen einzelne Vorschriften des zwingenden Rechts. Sie weiche auch in ihrer Gesamtheit so erheblich von dem im Bfirgerlichen Gesetzbuch geregelten Typus des autonomen Vereins ab und setze den Beschwerdefiihrer zu 1) so dominierenden Fremdeinflfissen aus, daB die Entscheidung dos Oberlandesgerichts, gemessen an den vereinsrechtlichen Vorschriften des Bfirgerlichen Gesetzbuchs, nicht beanstandet werden konne. Auch bei der gebotenen Beriicksichtigung des einschlégigen Verfassungsrechts ergebe sich nichts anderes. Die Beschwerdefiihrer héitten auch bisher nicht schh'issig dargelegt, daB der Glaube der Bahá’í im einzelnen die Organisationsregeln fordere, die vom Oberlandesgericht als unvereinbar mit den Vorschriften des Bfirgerlichen Gesetzbuchs erachtet wurden. Es liege Vielmehr nahe, daB die Glaubenslehre cine gewisse F lexibilitéit in der Ausgestaltung der Organisationsstruktur einréiume.

B. Die Verfassungsbeschwerden sind zul'assig.

1. Der Beschwerdefiihrer zu 1) ist zur Erhebung der Verfassungsbeschwerde befugt. Als Vereinigung von Personen kann er, unabhéingig von gegebener Rechtsfaihigkeit, die mogliche Verletzung eines Grundrechts geltend machen (vgl. BVerfGE 3, 383 <391>). Die Verfassungsbeschwerde betrifft gerade die Frage, ob dem Beschwerdeffihrer 211 1) die Eintragung als Verein und damit die Erlangung der Rechtsfaihigkeit ohne Verletzung seines Grundrechts aus Art. 4 Abs. 1 und 2 GG verweigert werden darf.

Der Beschwerdefiihrer zu 1) behauptet, or words in seiner Freiheit der Religionsausfibung dadurch verletzt, daB ihm mit der Verweigerung seiner Eintragung in das Vereinsregister unmoglich gemacht werde, sich so zu organisieren, Wie es seiner im wesentlichen durch den Glaubensinhalt der Bahá’í zwingend vorgegebenen inneren Verfassung entspreche. Damit ist der Schutzbereich des Grundrechts der Religionsfreiheit berfihrt. Das Vorbringen des Beschwerdefiihrers zu 1) ist auch hinreichend substantiiert; nach seinem Vortrag ist der Sach— und Lebensbereich der Religionsfreiheit betroffen und erscheint eine Verletzung des Gew'aihrleistungsinhalts dos Grundrechts moglich.

2. Die Beschwerdeflihrer zu 2) bis 4) bringen vor, die Ablehnung der Eintragung des Beschwerdeffihrers zu 1) macho es ihnen unmoglich, sich im Rahmen ihrer Glaubensgemeinschaft entsprechend den fiir die bindenden Vorgaben der ihr zuteil gewordenen Offenbarung zu organisieren und so ihre Religion auszufiben. Mit diesem Vortrag haben sic die Moglichkeit einer Verletzung ihres Grundrechts aus Art. 4 Abs. 1 und 2 GG, das gerade auch ein Individualgrundrecht ist, hinreichend dargetan. DaB die Beschwerdefiihrer zu 3) und 4) inzwischen nicht mehr dem ortlichen Geistigen Rat angehoren, hat das urspriinglich bestehende Interesse an einer Sachentscheidung nicht entfallen lassen. Wie sich cine Anderung der Sachlage auf eine anhéingige Verfassungsbeschwerde auswirkt, ist fiir den jeweiligen Einzelfall unter Berficksichtigung der Art (163 angegriffenen Hoheitsakts, der Bedeutung der geltend gemachten verfassungsrechtliofien Gew’cihrleistung und der Zwecke dos Verfassungsbeschwerde-Verfahrens zu entscheiden (BVérfGE 76, 1 <3 8>). 1m vorliegenden Fall ist die grundséitzliche Bedeutung der aufgeworfenen verfa'ssungsrechtlichen Frage und weiter zu berficksichtigen, daB die Besohwerdefiihrer zu 3) und 4) bei Wahlen erneut Mitglieder dos ortlichen Geistigen Rates der Bahá’í werden konnen und weitere gerichtliche Verfahren bei emeuten Antréigen auf Eintragung in das Vereinsregister mogh'ch sind (vgl. auch BVerfGE 21, 139 <143>).

[Page 580]580 THE Bahá’í WORLD

3. Das Rechtsschutzbedfirfnis fiir die Verfassungsbeschwerde fehlt nicht deshalb, weil das Oberlandesgericht seine Entscheidung auch auf die von den Beschwerdefiihrern nicht beanstandete Erw’cigung gestfitzt hat, Art. 9 Abs. 2 der Satzung gewéihrleiste hinsichtlich der Einberufung der Mitgliederversammlung nicht den von § 37 Abs. 1 BGB geforderten Minderheitenschutz. Insoweit handelt es sich ersichtlich um eine Frage, die im fachgerichtlichen Verfahren nur cine untergeordnete R0116 spielte. Die Beschwerdefiihrer sind zu einer Anderung der Satzung in diesem Punkt bereit. Es ist ihnen nicht zuzumuten, nach einer solchen Anderung erneut ein offensichtlich aussichtsloses Verfahren zu durchlaufen.

C. Die Verfassungsbeschwerden sind begriindet.

Die Entscheidungen der Gerichte warden der Bedeutung des in Art; 4 Abs. 1 und 2 GG in Verbindung mit Art. 140 GG/ 137 Abs. 2 und 4 WRV gewéihrleisteten Gmndrechts der religiésen Vereinigungsfreiheit fiir die Auslegung (und Handhabung) des Vereinsrechts des Bfirgerlichen Gesetzbuchs nicht gerecht und verletzen dadurch die Beschwerdefi'ihrer in ihren Grundrechten.

I.

Dem 6rt1ichen Geistigen Rat der Bahá’í Tfibingen und den Gl'eiubigen der Bahá’íGemeinschaft steht das Grundrecht aus Art. 4 Abs. 1 und 2 GG zu. Zwar kdnnen nicht allein die Behauptung und das Selbstverstéindnis, cine Gemeinschaft bekenne sich zu einer Religion und sei eine Religionsgemeinschaft, fiir diese und ihre Mitglieder die Berufung auf die Freiheitsgew'ahrleistung des Art. 4 Abs. 1 und 2 GG rechtfertigen; Vielmehr muB es sich auch tats'eichlich, nach geistigem Gehalt und éiuBerem Erscheinungsbild, um cine Religion und Religionsgemeinschaft handeln. Dies im Streitfall zu prfifen und zu entscheiden, obliegt ——als Anwendung einer Regelung der staatlichen Rechtsordnung—den staatlichen Organen, letztlich den Gerichten, die dabei freilich keine freie Bestimmungsmacht ausfiben, sondern den von der Verfassung gemeinten Oder vorausgesetzten, dem Sinn und Zweck der grundrechtlichen Verbiirgung entsprechenden Begriff der Religion zugrundezulegen haben. 1m vorliegenden Fall braucht hieraufjedoch nicht nfiher eingetreten zu warden, da der Charakter des Bahá’í-Glaubens als Religion und der Bahá’í—Gemeinschaft als Religionsgemeinschaft nach aktueller Lebenswirklichkeit, Kulturtradition und allgemeinem wie auch religionswissenschaftlichem Verst'eindnis offenkundig ist.

11.

Die Religionsfreiheit im Sinne (168 Art. 4 Abs. 1 und 2 GG umfaBt auch die religiése Vereinigungsfreiheit, wie sie sich aus dieser Bestimmung in Verbindung mit den einschl'eigigen, dutch Art. 140 GG einbez'ogefien Weimarer Kirchenartikeln ergibt.

1. Die religiése Vereinigungsfreiheit ist iri Art. 4 Abs. 1 und 2 GG nicht ausdriicklich benannt; eigens gewéihrleistet werden die Freiheit de’s Glaubens, des Gewissens, des religiésen und weltanschaulichen Bekenntnisses sowie die Freiheit der Religionsausiibung. Nach der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts ist die in Art. 4 GG verbfirgte Religionsfreiheit jedoch umfassend zu verstehen (vgl. BVerfGE 24, 236 <244 ff.>). Die Intention des Verfassungsgebers war nach der Erfahrung der Religionsverfolgung dutch das

[Page 581]INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT Bahá’í ACTIVITIES 581

NS-Regime darauf gerichtet, Religionsfreiheit nicht nut in bestimmten Teilfreiheiten, sondern V011 zu gew'eihrleisten. J edenfalls sollte keines der religiésen Freiheitsrechte, die als Ergebnis jahrhundertelanger geschichtlicher Entwicklung in der Weimarer Verfassung Anerkennung gefunden hatten, nunmehr ausgeschlossen sein. Zu diesen religiésen Freiheitsrechten gehérten die Glaubens— und Gewissensfreiheit einschliefilich der Bekenntnisfreiheit, die Freiheit der privaten und 6ffent1ichen Religionsausfibung (Kultusfreiheit) und die religiése Vereinigungsfreiheit (vgl. Art. 135, 136, 137 Abs. 2 WRV und G. Anschfitz, Die Religionsfreiheit, in: Ansohfitz/Thoma (Hrsg.), HDStR, Bd. 2, 1932, § 106, S. 681 ff.).

Dies Wird dutch die Entstehungsgeschichte bestéitigt. In den Beratungen des Parlamentarischen Rates enthielt der spéitere Art. 4 seit der Vorlage des Grundsatzausschusses und der ersten Lesung im HauptausschuB a1s Satz 2 (168 Abs. 1 ausdrficklich die Gewéihrleistung der religiésen Vereinigungsfreiheit (“Das Recht zur Vereinigung zu Religions- und Weltanschauungsgesellschaften wird anerkannt”). Erst in der Vierten Lesung im HauptausschuB am 4. Mai 1949—nach der Ubernahme des Weimarer Kirchenkompromisses in das Grundgesetzmwurde dieser Satz mit der Begrfindung gestrichen, er sei nunmehr entbehrlich, weil Art. 137 Abs. 2 WRV Bestandteil des Grundgesetzes geworden sei (V.Doemming/ FfiBlein/Matz, Entstehungsgeschichte der Artikel des Grundgesetzes: J 6R, N.F., Bd. 1, S. 73 ff.; Par1.Rat, HA-Prot., 57. Sitzung am 4.5.1949, S. 745). Daraus ergibt sich, daB nach dem Willen des Parlamentarischen Rats die religiése Vereinigungsfreiheit verfassungsrechtlich gewéihrleistet sein und bleiben sollte. Es ware diesem Befund und dem Willem des Verfassungsgebers gerade entgegengesetzt, ihr wegen der Herausnahme aus Art. 4, die nur erfolgte, um cine Doppelgew’aihrleistung zu vermeiden, nunmehr die Zugehérigkeit zur grundrech’dich garantierten Religionsfreiheit abzusprechen. Vielmehr ist davon auszugehen, daB Art. 4 Abs. 1 und 2 GG sich fiir die Gewéihrleistung der religiésen Vereinigungsfreiheit auf Art. 140 GG/ 137 Abs. 2 WRV bezieht und sic in dessen normativem Gehalt mitumfaBt.

2. Der Gewéihrleistungsinhalt der religiésen Vereinigungsfreiheit umfaBt die Freiheit, aus gemeinsamem Glauben sich zu einer Religionsgesellschaft zusammenzuschliefien und zu organisieren. Schon der Begriff der Religionsgesellschaft weist darauf hin, daB ein ZusammenschluB auf dem Boden der staatlichen Rechtsordnung gemeint ist und nicht etwa nur cine rein geistliche Kultgemeinschaft. Die Méglichkeit der Bi1dung einer Religionsgesellschaft s011 den Weg eréffnen, sich als Vereinigung von Menschen zur Verwirklichung des gemeinsamen religiésen Zwecks zu organisieren, cine rech’diche Gestalt zu geben und am allgemeinen Rechtsverkehr teilzunehmen. Damit ist kein Anspruch auf cine bestimmte Rechtsform gemeint, etwa die des rechtsfiihigen Vereins Oder einer sonstigen Form der juristischen Person; gewéihrleistet ist die Maglichkeit einer irgendwie gearteten rechtlichen Existenz einschlieBlich der Teilnahme am allgemeinen Rechtsverkehr.

Dem entspricht es, daB Art. 140 GG in Verbindung mit Art. 137 Abs. 4 WRV den Religionsgesellschaften die Méglichkeit eréffnet und gew'ahrleistet, die Rechtsfahigkeit nach den allgemeinen Vorschriften des bfirgerlichen Rechts zu erwerben. Diese Vorschriften haben Wie jedermann so auch die Religionsgesellschaften grunds'eitzlich zu beachten. Es verschléigt daher nichts, wenn eine ReligiSnsgesellschaft Oder cine ihrer Gliederungen wegen einer glaubensbegrfindeten besonderen Organisation cine bestimmte Rechtsform, die sie erstrebt, nicht erlangen kann. Die religiése Vereinigungsfre'iheit gebietet allerdings, das Eigenverstéindnis der Religionsgesellschaft, soweit es in den Bereich der dutch Art. 4 Abs. 1 GG als unverletzlich gewéhrleisteten Glaubens- und Bekenntnisfreiheit wurzelt und sich in der durch Art. 4 Abs. 2 GG geschfitzten Religionsausfibung verwirklicht, bei der Auslegung und Handhabung des einschléigigen Rechts, hier des Vereinsrechts des Bfirgerlichen

[Page 582]582 THE Bahá’í WORLD

Gesetzbuchs, besonders zu beriicksichtigen (vgl. BVerfGE 53, 366 <401> m.w.N.). Das bedeutet nicht nur, daB die Religionsgesellschaft Gestaltungsspielrfiume, die das dispositive Recht eréffnet, V011 ausschépfen darf. Auch bei der Handhabung zwingender Vorschriften sind Auslegungsspielréiume, soweit erforderlich, zugunsten der Religionsgesellschaft zu nutzen; dies darf allerdings nicht dazu ffihren, unabweisbare Rficksichten auf die Sicherheit des Rechtsverkehrs und auf die Rechte anderer zu vemachléissigen.

Unvereinbar mit der religiésen Vereinigungsfreiheit Weire ein Ergebnis, das cine Religionsgesellschaft im Blick auf ihre innere Organisation von der Teilnahme am allgemeinen Rechtsverkehr génzlich ausschlésse Oder diese nur unter Erschwerungen erméglichte, die unzumutbar sind.

III.

Dem dargelegten normativen Gehalt der religiésen Vereinigungsfreiheit werden die angegriffenen Entscheidungen nicht gerecht. Das Vereinsrecht des Bfirgerlichen Gesetzbuchs léiBt es 211, besonderen Anforderungen an die innere Organisation Rechnung zu tragen, die sich aus der Eigenart von religiésen Vereinen ergeben, die Teilgliederungen einer Religionsgesellschaft sind Oder mit ihr in besonderer Verbindung stehen. Dies ist, da den Bahá’í die Rechtsform der Kérperschaft des éffentlichen Rechts nicht zur Verfiigung steht (nachfolgend 1), im Blick auf den 6rtlichen Geistigen Rat aus Art. 4 Abs. 1 und 2 GG auch verfassungsrechtlich geboten (nachfolgend 2).

1. Die Bahá’í—Gemeinschaft kann die Eigenschaft als Kérperschaft des éffentlichen Rechts gem‘eiB Art. 140 GG/Art. 137 Abs. 5 WRV nicht erlangen. Mit dieser Organisationsform wfirden zwar die bestehenden Problems gelést, denn im Rahmen der “Kéjrperschaft des 6ffent1ichen Rechts”, die im Regelungszusammenhang des Art. 137 Abs. 5 WRV nur als Mantelbegriff fungiert, lieBe sich die Einfiigung in cine hierarchische Struktur, Wie sie fiir die Bahá’í von ihrer Glaubenslehre vorgegeben erscheint, organisatorisch V011 verwirkliChen. Das zeigt etwa das Beispiel der Rémisch-Katholischen Kirche, fur die insoweit eine hierarchische Organisationsstruktur bestimmend ist, die ohne Abstriche fiir das staatliche Recht Geltung gewinnt. So warden Pfarreien nach Anhijrung des diézesanen Priesterrats allein durch den Ortsbischof errichtet und aufgelést, ohne daB dafiir der Rat Oder die Zustimmung des Pfarrers, der Pfarrangehérigen Oder eines von den Pfarrangehc’jrigen gewéihlten Gremiums erforderlich Ware (Can. 515, § 2 i.V.m. Can. 127, §§ 1 und 2 CIC). Die Beschwerdefiihrer haben indes dargelegt, daB fijr die Bahá’í—Gemeinschaft nach den einschlégigen Empfehlungen der Kultusministerkonferenz und nach dem Ergebnis einer Anfrage beim Hessischen Kultusministerium die Anerkennung als Kérperschaft des tiffentlichen Rechts fiir sie nicht in Frage komme; sie habe im Jahre 1986 in der Bundesrepublik nur etwa 4.000 bis 5.000 Mitglieder, die sich zudem auf etwa 50 firtliche Bahá’í-Gemeinden verteilten. Es léiBt sich nicht sagen, daB die Verweigerung der Anerkennung als Karperschaft des (iffentlichen Rechts angesichts dieser Umstéinde im Blick auf die Kriterien des Art. 137 Abs. 5 WRV rechtsfehlerhaft Oder gar miBbréiuchlich Ware. Daher kann dahinstehen, 0b die Bahá’í-Gemeinschaft, wéire die Erléngung‘der Eigenschaft einer Kérperschaft des {iffen’diChen Rechts fur sie méglich, ohne EinbuBe in ‘dem Freiheitsanspruch aus Art. 4 Abs. 1 und 2 GG darauf auch verwiesen warden kénnte, Oder ob ihr insoweit die Wahl der Rechtsform offenstiinde.

2. Es ist im Rahmen des Vereinsrechts des Bfirgerlichen Gesetzbuchs méglich und verfassungsrechtlich geboten, die glaubensbedingten Anforderungen an die innere Organisation des 6rt1ichen Geistigen Rates der Bahá’í als religi'o'ser Verein und Teilgliederung einer Religionsgesellschaft besonders zu beriicksichtigen.

[Page 583]

INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT Bahá’í ACTIVITIES 583

21) Die von den Gerichten mit dem Grundsatz der Selbstéindigkeit und Selbstverwaltung (Vereinsautonomie) fiir unvereinbar angesehenen Bestirnrnungen der vorgelegten Satzung fiber das Zustandekommen der Mitgliedschaft (Art. 3 Abs. 2), den AusschluB von der Mitgliedschaft (Art. 4 Abs. 2) und die Auflésung des Vereins (Art. 14 Abs. 1 Buchst. b), die Erfordernisse einer Satzungs'einderung (Art. 13 Abs. 2) und die Abgrenzung der Aufgaben des Vereins (Art. 11 Abs. 1 Buchst. e) betreffen nicht diejenigen Bestimmungen des Vereinsrechts, die im Interesse der Sicherheit und Klarheit des Rechtsverkehrs die nach auBen wirkenden Angelegenheiten und Rechtsverhfiltnisse regeln (Bestellung und Abberufung des Vorstands, dessen Vertretungsmacht, Haftung des Vereinsverrnb'gens, Liquidation bei Auflfisung des Vereins u.a.m.). Sie beziehen sich allein auf die innere Organisation des Vereins.

b) Die beanstandeten Regelungen stehen nicht in Widersprueh zum Wortlaut vereinsrechtlicher Vorschriften fiber die innere Organisation des Vereins. Die in § 41 BGB geregelte Auflfisung des Vereins durch BeschluB der Mitgliederversammlung Wird nicht ausgeschlossen, sondern durch das Auflfisungsrecht des Nationalen Geistigen Rates der Bahá’í ergfinzt; fiber die Art und Weise des Zustandekommens der Mitgliedschaft enthéilt § 58 BGB ebensowenig eine Regelung wie fiber AusschluBméglichkeiten; die Bestimmung des § 33 BGB fiber Satzungséinderungen ist dispositiv (§ 40 BGB); fiber die Abgrenzung von Vereinsaufgaben besteht keine gesetzliche Regelung.

0) Die Gerichte begrfinden die Unzul'eissigkeit der genannten Satzungsbestimmungen denn auch allein aus der Unvereinbarkeit mit dem das Vereinsrecht prégenden Grundsatz der Vereinsautonomie. Dieser Grundsatz der Vereinsautonomie ist irn Vereinsrecht des BGB nicht ausdrfieklich festgelegt; er wird Vielmehr durch Rechtsprechung und Lehre der Gesamtheit der Vorschriften entnommen, die die Konstituierung und Organisation des Vereins sowie die Wahrnehmung der Vereinsangelegenheiten auf den Willen der Vereinsmitglieder zurfickffihren, und als darin vorausgesetzt angesehen. Sein Ziel ist, der Privatautonomie vergleichbar, den Charakter des Vereins als eines vomehmlich von der Willensbestimmung und —bet'eitigung seiner Mitglieder getragenen Personenverbandes zu wahren (KG, OLGZ 1974, S. 385 <387>; RGRK—Steffen, 12. Aufl., Rdnrn. 31 f. vor § 21, § 25 Rdnr. 1; StaudingerCoing, 12. Aufl., Vorbem. zu §§ 21—54, Rdnr. 38 ; AK-Ott, § 25 Rdnrn. 15 f.; vgl. auch Flume, Allgemeiner Teil des Bfirgerlichen Rechts 1/2, 1983, S. 189 f). Es gehért zu dieser Autonomic, den mit ihr ausgestatteten Einrichtungen das Reeht einzurfiumen, sich die ihren Zwecken entsprechende Organisation selbst zu geben und diese frei zu bestimmen, soweit dem nicht zwingende Vorschriften oder dem Wesen der entsprechenden Institution zu entnehmende Grundsfitze entgegenstehen. In der Rechtsprechung wird hervorgehoben, daB diese Autonomie auch in der Weise ausgefibt werden kann, daB das Selbstverwaltungsrecht des Vereins satzungsm‘aiBig beschréinkt Wird; auch eine solche Beschréinkung stellt die Ausfibung V011 Autonomic dar; es bedeutete daher eine Beschneidung von Autonomic, wenn solehe Regelungen ffir unzuléissig erkl'eirt Wfirden (vgl. KG, OLGZ 1974, S. 385 <3 87>; Dfitz, 2. F S fiir Herschel, 1982, S. 55 <73 ff.>; a.A. Flume, a.a.O., S. 194 ff.).

Der Grundsatz der Vereinsautonomie, Wie er in Rechtsprechung und Schrifttum verstanden Wird, wird somit von zwei ’nicht notwendig parallel laufenden inhaltlichen Tendenzen gepr'eigt: Einerseits schfitzt er die Autonomic in der Bildung und organisatorischen Gestaltung des Vereins nach der freien Selbstentscheidung der Mitglieder, wozu auch die Einfiigung in eine hierarchisch organisierte Gemeinschaft gehfiren kann, andererseits bewahrt er die Selbstbestimmung des Vereins und seiner Mitglieder vor einer EntéiuBerung, die die eigene Willensbestimmung nahezu vollstéindig zum Erliegen bringt. Er schliefit es nicht aus, ist Vielmehr dafiir offen, bei seiner Auslegung und Anwendung beide

[Page 584]584 THE BAHA’I' WORLD

Tendenzen unter Berficksichtigung des konkreten Falles, d‘h. auch bezogen auf Zweckausrichtung und Eigenart (163 in Frage stehenden Vereins, zurn Ausgleich zu bringen. So Wird es mit der Vereinsautonomie fiir vereinbar gehalten, gestufte Verb'ainde zu schaffen, innerhalb deren die Unterverbéinde—sei es als rechtsfaihige, sei es als nichtrechtsfeihige Vereine—zu Oberverbéinden in Abháingigkeit stehen, ihren Vereinscharakter dadurch aber nicht verlieren, sofern sie auch eigenstéindig Aufgaben wahrnehmen (Reichert/ Dannecker/Kfihr, Handbuch des Vereins— und Verbandsrechts, 4. Aufl. 1987, Rdnrn. 2098 ff; Soergel—Hadding, Rdnrn. 53 vor § 21; BGHZ 90, S. 331).

d) Wird dabei die Eigenart religiéser Vereine, die sich als Teil einer Religionsgemeinschaft organisieren, bedacht, so liegt es im Blick auf die Vielfach zu beobachtende glaubensgebundene hierarchische innere Organisation von Religionsgesellschaften nahe, daB Vereine, die Teilgliederungen von Religionsgesellschaften sind oder mit ihnen in besondeter Verbindung stehen, sich in die Hierarchie ihrer Rehgionsgemeinschaft einfiigen wollen. Darin kann nicht ohne weiteres die Unterwerfung unter cine Fremdbestimmung von auBen gesehen warden, die die Selbst'eindigkeit und Selbstverwaltung des Vereins in ihrem Kern trifft.

aa) Die Autonomic in der Bildung und Organisation eines religiésen Vereins kann dahin bet'aitigt warden, daB als Zweck des Vereins gewollt Wird, cine Teilgliederung einer Religionsgemeinschaft zu sein und sich in deren religionsrechtlich bestimmte Struktur einzufiigen. Solche selbstgesetzten Einordnungszwecke, die sich bei einem religiésen Verein gerade als Ausdruck der religiésen Selbstbestimmung der Mitglieder in ihrem gemeinsamen Glauben darstellen, mfissen nicht schlechthin als Preisgabe der Selbstbestimmung des Vereins beurteilt werden. Die Grenze ist erst dort erreicht, wo Selbstbestimmung und Selbstverwaltung des Vereins nicht nur in bestimmten Hinsichten, wie sie sich aus der religionsrechtlich vorausgesetzten hierarchischen Einordnung ergeben, sondern dariiber hinaus in weitem Umfang ausgeschlossen werden; der Verein Wfirde dann nicht mehr vornehmlich vom Willen der Mitglieder getragen, sondem zur bloflen Verwaltungsstelle Oder einem bIOBen Sondervermégen eines anderen (vgl. KG, OLGZ 1974, S. 385 <390>; BayobLGZ 1979, S. 303 <308 ff.>).

Hiemach léiBt es das Vereinsrecht zu, bei einem religiésen Verein, der sich als Teilgliederung einer Religionsgesellschaft konstituiert, Einschréinkungen der autonomen Auflésungs-, AusschlieBungs— Oder Betéitigungsbefugnis nicht als mit der Vereinsautonomie unvereinbare Fremdbestimmung von auBen anzusehen, sofern sie der Sicherung der Einordnung in die gréBere Religionsgemeinschaft im Rahmen der bestehenden re1igionsrechtlichen Verknfipfung—«atwa der Wahrung der Identitéit der Glaubenslehre und grundlegender glaubensbedingter Lebensfiihrungspflichtenmdienen und sich darauf begrenzen. Bei solcher Begrenzung der Eingriffsbefugnisse einer hierarchisch fibergeordneten Instanz, die fiir sich nur eine Art Lehramt und entsprechende Jurisdiktionsbefugnisse beansprucht, bleibt noch ein hinreichender Bestand an Selbstbestimmung und Selbstt‘atigkeit des Vereins gewahrt.

bb) Indem die Gerichte den in der Satzung normierten EinfluB des Nationalen Geistigen Rates auf Bestand, Mitgliedschaft find Betiitigung des 6rt1ichen Geistigen Rates generell als unzuléissige Fremdbestimmung des Vereins” ’Von auBen ansehen, haben sie die Eigenart religiéser Vereine, die sich als Teilgliederung einer Religionsgesellschaft glaubensgebunden hierarchisch organisieren, und damit die Bedeutung des Grundrechts der religic‘isen Vereinigungsfreiheit fur die Auslegung und Anwendung des Grundsatzes der Vereinsautonomie verkannt. Sie haben den Nationa1en Geistigen Rat Wie eine fremde, von anderen Zielen und Interessen bestimmte Organisation angesehen, die beherrschenden EinfluB ausiibt, ohne die

[Page 585]INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT Bahá’í ACTIVITIES 585

durch die religionsrechtliche Verkm’ipfung gegebene Einheit und Gemeinsamkeit zu beachten. Nichts anderes gilt im Ergebnis hinsichflich der Wahl der Mitglieder des éfilichen Geistigen Rates dutch die Gléiubigen der értlichen Bahá’í—Gemeinde. Diese sind kraft der religionsrechtlichen Verkm'ipfung ebenfalls nicht Fremde, die den Verein einer andersgerichteten Bestimmung von auBen unterwerfen und dadurch seine Selbstbestimmung aufheben; Vielmehr steht diese Art der Begrfindung der Mitgliedschaft mit dem Zweck des Vereins, als hierarchische Leitungsinstanz die Angelegenheiten der értlichen Bahá’í-Gemeinde zu verwalten (Art. 2 Abs. 1 der Satzung und die Préambel), in Einklang und client gerade seiner Verwirklichung.

e) Ein unzuléissiger FremdeinfluB kann sich auch nicht daraus ergeben, daB bei Auflésung des Vereins durch den Nationalen Geistigen Rat das Vereinsvermégen diesem zufeillt (Art. 14 Abs. 1 und 2 der Satzung). Ziehichtung dieser Satzungsbestimmung ist nicht, dem Nationalen Geistigen Rat unter Ausnutzung seiner Auflésungsbefugnis den Zugriff auf fremdes Vermégen zum Zweck eigener Vermégensmehrung zu eréffnen. Hiergegen spricht bereits, daB nach der Satzung keine Beitréige erhoben werden, die den Zweck einer Verméigensansammlung verfolgen; die Finanzierung des Vereins erfolgt allein durch freiwillige Spenden; zudem hat sich der Verein ausdriicklich den rechtlichen Bindungen der Gemeinnfitzigkeit unterstellt (Art. 2 Abs. 2 und 3 der Satzung).

IV.

Die genannten Entscheidungen verletzen danach die Beschwerdefiihrer in ihrem Grundrecht aus Art. 4 Abs. 1 und 2 GG in Verbindung mit Art. 140 GG/137 Abs. 2 und 4 WRV, indem sie die Eigenart des 6rtlichen Geistigen Rates als religiéser Verein und Teilgliederung einer Religionsgesellschaft bei der Auslegung und Anwendung des Begriffs der Vereinsautonomie nicht hinreichend ben‘icksichtigen. Sie sind daher aufzuheben. Die Sache ist an das Amtsgericht zur emeuten Entscheidung zurl'ickzuverweisen. Es Wird dabei u.a. zu prfifen haben, 0b das in der Satzung unbegrenzt formulierte Auflésungs— und AusschlieBungsrecht dutch den Nationalen Geistigen Rat schon dutch den Zweck des Vereins und die Préambel der Satzung hinreichend eingeschréinkt im Sinne der Darlegungen unter III 2 (1) aa) erscheint Oder ob es insoweit einer ausdriicklichen Festlegung in der Satzung bedarf.

Die Entscheidung fiber die Kosten folgt aus § 3421 Abs. 2 BVerfGG. Mahrenholz Béckenférde Klein

Grthof Kruis F ranfien Kirchhof Winter

[Page 586]586 THE Bahá’í WORLD

[TRANSLATION —- FROM GERMAN]

Guiding Principles

for the decision of the Second Senate of 5th February 1991 — 2 BVR 263/86 l. A community’s mere assertion and self—understanding of professing a religion and of being a religious community cannot justify reference for it and its members to the guarantee of religious freedom of Art. 4, par. 1 and 2 GG; rather it must be a religion and a religious community in fact, according to spiritual content and outward appearance. To examine and determine this in case of dispute is the duty of the organs of the State, of the courts in the final analysis, - in application of the ruling of the State’s legal system.

2. a) To the freedom of religion in the meaning of Art. 4, par. 1 and 2 GG belongs also the freedom of religious association, arising from this regulation in connection With the relevant Weimar Church Articles included by Art. 140 GG.

b) The guarantee of freedom of religious association contains also the freedom to form a religious association and organize according to one’s common faith. This does not mean the right to a particular legal form, such as that of an incorporated association or some other form of corporation; What is guaranteed is the possibility of legal existence in some form or other, including participation in general legal proceedings.

[Page 587]

INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT BAHA’T ACTIVITIES 587

[TRANSLATION — FROM GERMAN]

FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT —- 2 BVR 263/86 IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE

In the Proceedings on the Constitutional Appeal

1. of the “SpiritualAssemb1y of the Baha’ 1S Of Tfibingen, With its seat in Tfibingen”, represented by the Chairman, Mr. S...

2. of Mr. S ..

3. 0ers. 8....

4. 0ers. S...

—- Represented by: Attorneys Dr. Michael Uechtritz, Dr. Hans Schlarmann, BirkenwaldstraBe 149, Stuttgart 1 against a) the decision of the High State Court Stuttgart of27 January 1986 —— 8 W 252/85 —, b) the decision of the State Court Tiibingen Of8 May 1985 — 5 T 34/84 (FGG) —, c) the decision of the District Court Tfibingen Of 8 December 1983 and of2 January 1984 — GReg. 11922/83 the F ederal Constitutional Court ~ Second Senate ~ With the participation of Judges Vice—chairman Mahrenholz, Beckenféjrde, Klein, Grthof, Kruis, FranBen, Kirchhof, Winter

decided on 5 F ebruary 1991:

The Decisions of the High StateCourt Stuttgart of 27 January 1986 — 8 W 252/85 —, of the State Court Tiibingen Of 8 May 1985 — 5 T. 34/84 (F GG) — and Of the District Court Ttibingen of 8 December 1983 and of 2 January 1984 — GReg. 11 922/83 — Violate the basic rights of the appellants accorded by Article 4, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Constitution. They are repealed. The case is referred back to the District Court.

The State of Baden—Wiirttemberg has to reimburse the appellants for the necessary expenses.

[Page 588]588 THE Bahá’í WORLD

Reasons: A.

Subject of the Constitutional Appeal is the question to What extent Art. 4, par. 1 and 2 GG requires that the individuality of a religious association, considering and organizing itself as part of a religious community, must be taken into account in the interpretation and application of regulations of corporate law of the Code of Civil Law.

I.

The Religious Community of the Bahá’ís, constituting a religious movement arisen out of Shi’ih Islam, is represented in a multiplicity of countries. It is hierarchically organized and is currently governed by the “Universal House of Justice”, consisting of nine elected members, With its seat in Haifa, Israel). In countries With a considerable number of local communities, a nine-member National Spiritual Assembly is elected annually in an indirect election by the totality of its members. In the F ederal Republic of Germany this is established as a registered association; in other countries it makes use of other legal forms of association or incorporation according to the laws valid there. As governing bodies on a local level, Local Spiritual Assemblies also consisting of nine members are elected by the believers of the local community, and are responsible for regulating local affairs.

II.

1. The appellant under 2) is chairman, the appellants under 3) and 4) were further elected officers of the appellant under 1). On 14 February 1983 the appellant under 2) as chairman of the governing body applied to the District Court Tiibingen for registration of the appellant under 1) in the Court’s Register of Associations. The By-Laws on Which this application is based contain the following regulations, Which are significant here:

Article 2

Purpose of the Association

I The purpose of the Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Tiibingen is the administration of all the affairs of the Bahá’í Community in Tfibingen according to the teachings and administrative principles of the Bahá’í Religion, as they appear in the Appendix following the By-Laws.

II Accordingly the Spiritual Assembly exclusively and directly pursues charitable and religious purposes and purposes of public benefit in the sense of the paragraph on “TaX-favoured purposes” in Tax Law.

III The Spiritual Assembly acts in a disinterested capacity and does not pursue puiposes for its own economic benefit.

Article 3

Establishment of Membership

1

II The members of the Spiritual Assembly are elected by the voting members of the Bahá’í Community from amongst their midst by secret ballot With simple plurality vote, for the duration of one year, or until the election of their successors. This

[Page 589]INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT Bahá’í ACTIVITIES 5 89

election takes place on 21 April of each year at the Annual Convention of the Bahá’í Community. Details are regulated by Article 10.

111 Article 4 Termination of membership I Membership is terminated by the expiration of time and new election of the Spiritual Assembly, by resignation, by removal, by leaving the Bahá’í Community of Tfibingen. H The removal of a member of the Spiritual Assembly falls Within the competence of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Germany. Article 5 By—Eleetion I Vacancies in the membership of the Spiritual Assembly are replaced by election at a

special meeting of the Bahá’í Community duly called by the Spiritual Assembly for this purpose. As long as the number of members of the Spiritual Assembly does not fall below 5, its decision—making competence is maintained.

II If the number of vacancies is higher than four, so that the Spiritual Assembly is no longer competent to make decisions, the election is can‘ied out under the supervision of the National Spiritual Assembly.

Article 9

Meeting of the members

I

II All subsequent meetings are called informally (in writing, by telephone 01' orally) by the Secretary of the Spiritual Assembly at the request of the Chairman or, if he is prevented, by the Vice—chaiiman, 01' at the request of three members of the Assembly or by decision of the Assembly in advance.

III IV

Atticle 11 The National Spiritual Assembly I The institution superior to all the Spiritual Assemblies in the Federal Republic is the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Germany e.V. It decides a) and b) ...; 0) about the area of jurisdiction of the Local Spiritual Assembly; (1) to f)

Article 13

Amendment of the By-Laws

I

II Amendments to the By-Laws require the approval of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís Of Geimany. They become effective on registration in the Court’s Register of Associations.

[Page 590]5 90 THE BAHA’t WORLD

Article 14

Dissolution

I The dissolution of the Spiritual Assembly can result a) from an absolute maj ority decision taken by the members of the Assembly

in a meeting of the members called exclusively for this purpose, b) from an absqute maj ority decision of the National Spiritual Assembly.

11 In case of the dissolution of the Spiritual Assembly its assets are transferred to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Germany, which must use them directly and exclusively for charitable and re1igious purposes and purposes of public benefit.

2. The District Court indicated questionable 1ega1 points of a formal and material kind in the registration procedure and demanded rectification. The appellant under 1) was stated to lack particularly the necessary legal independence, because its existence is dependent on the one hand on the local community, and on the other on the National Spiritual Assembly. The appellants counter-claimed that the institutional structure of the world—wide Bahá’í Community rests on a divine foundation and cannot be changed by them. As, according to the Constitutional Law of the Bahá’ís, all power of jurisdiction lies with the elected bodies, these should be given legal capacity in order to be able to participate in legal proceedings. The District Court rejected the application for registration with the decision of 8 December 1983, and another application of 22.12.1983 With the decision of 2 J anuary 1984.

3. The immediate appeal of the appellants under 2) to 4) against the decisions of the District Court of 8 December 1983 and 2 January 1984 was rejected as unjustified by the State Court on 8 May 1985. The Association’s By-Laws presented were stated to Violate § 37 par. 1 BGB, as well as the principle of corporate autonomy. Art 9 par. 2 of the By-Laws, which gives the provisions for calling a meeting of the members, was stated not to do justice to the protection of the minority called for in § 37 par. 1 BGB. The 1ega1 provision demands that the number of members at whose request a meeting of the members is to be called be fixed proportionately, so that allowance Wi11 be made for future changes in the strength of the Association. The membership of the Association could drop to five without resu1ting in legal incapacity to make decisions. In this case the number of three members fixed in Art. 9 par. 2 no 1onger represents a minority.

Above all it was pointed out that the By-Laws contain regulations leading to a legal and organizational dependence of the Association on a third party and are thus incompatible With the principle of independence and self-administration of associations. On the one hand through Art. 4 par. 2, 11 par. 1, 13 par. 2, 14 par. 1 letter b, and through further regulations, the National Spiritual Assembly as a non—member of the Association is to be given the right of decision—making in the removal of members, amendment of the By-Laws, dissolution of the Association and other matters concerning the Association; on the other hand the Bahá’í Community is to decide through elections on the establishment and the duration of the membership, according to Art. 3 par. 2 and 4 par. 1. Such Wide—ranging influence by a third party in the organization of an associatioii is inadmissible.

4. The High State Court Stuttgart rejected’as unjustified the further appeal of the appellants under 2) to 4) with decision of 27 January 1986 (OLGZ 1986, p. 257). It noted that Art. 9 par. 2 of the By-Laws violates § 37 par. 1 BGB, because it does not ensure, with a possible change in the number of members, that the call for a meeting of the members has to follow the request of a minority. The By-Laws are furthermore not reconcilable with the principle of independence and self—administration of the Association (corporate autonomy). Art. 14

[Page 591]INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT Bahá’í ACTIVITIES 591

par. 2 letter b, according to which the National Spiritual Assembly can dissolve the Association, violates § 41 BGB. It is inadmissible to give the right to an external third party to dissolve the Association against the wish of its members. Insofar as jurisprudence had judged such regulations in individual cases to be admissible (KG, DJ 1936, p. 1948; OLG Karlsruhe, W 1936, p. 3266; OLG Stuttgart, Das Recht [The Law] 1936, col. 151), these decisions had been made in the time of National Socialism and their reasoning was not convincing. The election of the members by the Bahá’í Community, as envisaged in Art. 3 par. 2 and Art. 4 par. 1 of the By-Laws, violates §§ 38 and 5 8 No. 1 BGB. The form by Which a new member joins and the declaration of acceptance could indeed be regulated in the ByLaws in any way that is desired, and membership can be tied to certain pre-conditions. But in principle the Association is to be free to decide whether to accept someone as a member, as long as it is not, as a vitally important Association with monopoly status, exceptionally obliged to accept members. Apart from these individual regulations, the overall picture of the By-Laws shows such a strong third—party influence that there can no longer be a question of autonomous action on the part of the Association. Significant hereby are the National Spiritual Assembly’s rights of intervention, according to Art. 4 par. 2 (removal of a member), Art. 11 par. 1 letter 0 (right of decision-making on the area of jurisdiction), Art. 13 par. 2 (reserving approval for amendment of the By-Laws), Art. 14 par. 2 (transfer of the assets to the National Spiritual Assembly in case of the dissolution of the Association). The ByLaws contain a renunciation of the autonomy of the Association not in accordance with corporate law.

III.

The Constitutional Appeals are addressed against the decisions of the High State Court and of the State Court as well as—in the relevant interpretation of the brief of the Constitutional Appeal—against both decisions of the District Court. The appellants presented an expert opinion by Prof. Dr. Friedrich Miiller on this and claim essentially:

1. The Constitutional Appeals are admissible. The required interest for legal protection is established. This is not contravened by the fact that the rejection of the application to register was based also on an objection to Art. 9 par. 2 of the By-Laws, Which the appellants had agreed to change. Should an application again be made after amendment of this provision of the By~Laws, it would again be rejected because of the other provisions of the By-Laws which were questioned by the High State Court, in which case there would probably be no re—examination of the case.

2. The High State Court has interpreted the corporate law of the Code of Civil Law incorrectly, and has especially misunderstood the content and significance of Art. 4 par. 1 and 2, Art. 140 GG in connection with Art. 137 par. 3, 4 WRV.

a) Contrary to the interpretation of the High State Court § 41 par. 1 BGB does not prevent the transfer to a third party of the right to dissolve the Association. This is certainly true When the assembly of the members has this right as well. The provisions of the By-Laws for the e1eetion of the members of the Association 'by‘the Bahá’í Community and the termination of their membership due to new elections are in accordance with §§ 38 and 58 BGB. As is shown from §§ 25 and 40 BGB, State Law leaves it to the Association to make such provisions. No objections can be derived from the Code of Civil Law either against the competence of the National Spiritual Assembly to remove a member of the Local Spiritual Assembly (Art. 4 par. 2 of the By-Laws), or to the definition of its area of jurisdiction (Art. 11 par. 1 letter c), or to the duty of approval for amendment of the By-Laws provided for in

[Page 592]

5 92 THE Bahá’í WORLD

Art. 13 par. 2, or to the transfer of assets of the Spiritual Assembly in case of its dissolution to the National Spiritual Assembly (Art. 14 par. 2). Altogether the provisions of the ByLaws contested by the High State Court did not grant an inadmissible outside influence of a third party on the appellant under 1). Its integration in the hierarchical structure of the Religious Community of the Bahá’ís is of necessity given by its rules and principles, which are based on divine Revelation.

b) The denial of legal capacity violates the constitutional rights of the appellant under 1) as derived from Art. 4 par. 1 and 2 GG and violates Art. 140 GG in connection with Art. 137 par. 3 and 4 WRV. These provisions of the Constitution comprehend an organizational structure for a religious community, including the right to seek legal capacity for an administrative institution of the community. In the understanding of the Bahá’ís, which is relevant here, it is an unyieldable principle that the administrative institutions of the local communities, but not the communities themselves, should attain legal capacity. The Constitution in Art. 140 GG in connection with Art. 137 par. 2 to 5 WRV gives religious communities the basic right of choice as regards their legal form. Since the Bahá’ís were denied the status of ‘Korperschaft des offentlichen Rechts’ [Corporate Body under Public Law] which they sought, the appellant under 1) must be granted legal capacity under Civil Law. Even if the High State Court’s interpretation of corporate law for non—religious associations should be conect, its effect on the appellant under 1) is more serious because of his religious aims and the necessity of integration in the national and international order of the Bahá’ís which they require, and thus it cannot be applied to him.

The appellants under 2) to 4) as officers of appellant under 1) suffer Violation of their right, protected by Art. 4 par. 2 GG, to carry out administrative activities for the religious community.

IV.

On the Constitutional Appeal the F ederal Minister of Justice and the Ministry for Justice, Federal and European Affairs of Baden—Wfirttemberg have given their opinion. Both consider the Constitutional Appeal unjustified.

1. The Federal Minister of Justice explains that the right to be granted legal capacity for the appellant under 1) cannot directly be derived from Art. 4 par. 2 and Art. 140 GG in connection with Art. 137 par. 3 WRV by referring to the contents of belief of the Bahá’í Religion. Art. 4 par. 2 GG obliges the State to respect belief and to protect the practice of religion, but not to create legal regulations which correspond to the particular contents of belief of individual religious communities. It is questionable whether Art. 137 par. 3 WRV covers the attainment of legal capacity by the appellant under 1); Art. 137 par. 4 WRV, which is not directly applicable to the appellant under 1) as a mere sub—organization of a religious community, gives an explicit regulation just for this area. In any case, the Spiritual Assembly can attain legal capacity only according to the general prescriptions of Civil Law; lesser requirements than those derpanded in Art. 137 par. 4 WRV for the registration of a religious community as an association, Could not apply in this case. The Courts, in their decision on the registration of the appellanti‘under 1), have not misunderstood the meaning and significance of Art. 140 GG in connection with Art. 137 par. 3 and 4 WRV.

2. According to the View of the Minister of Justice, Federal and European Affairs of Baden-Wiirttemberg, the By-Laws Violate not only individual regulations of the compulsory law. They also depart significantly in their totality from the type of autonomous association regulated in the Code of Civil Law, and so expose the appellant under 1) to dominating

[Page 593]

INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT BAHA’l ACTIVITIES 593

third—party influences, that the decision of the High State Court cannot be contested in the light of the regulations of corporate law of the Code of Civil Law. Even When taking the relevant Constitutional Law into necessary consideration, no other result can obtain. The appellants have not so far proven conclusively that the belief of the Bahá’ís demands in particular the organizational rules considered irreconcilable With the regulations of the Code of Civil Law. It is suggested rather that the teachings of the Faith grant a certain flexibility in the arrangement of details of the organizational structure.

B. The Constitutional Appeals are admissible.

1. The appellant under 1) is entitled to make the Constitutional Appeal. As a union of persons he can, independent of given legal capacity, claim the possible Violation of a constitutional right (of. BVerfGE 3, 383 <391>). The Constitutional Appeal specifically concerns the question Whether the appellant under 1) can be denied registration as an association and thus the attainment of legal capacity, Without Violation of his constitutional right from Art. 4 par. 2 and 2 GG.

The appellant under 1) asserts that his freedom of religious practice is violated by the fact that With the denial of his registration in the Court’s Register of Associations it has been made impossible for him to organize in accordance With the internal constitution prescribed essentially and imperatively by the belief of the Bahá’ís. Thus the protection of the Constitutional Law of religious freedom is infringed. The claim of the appellant under 1) is adequately substantiated; according to his presentation the material and Vital areas of religious freedom are concerned and there appears a possible Violation of the guarantee of the Constitutional Law.

2. The appellants under 2) to 4) claim that the denial of registration to the appellant under 1) makes it impossible for them to organize themselves in the framework of their religious community according to the binding prescriptions of the Revelation underlying it, and thus to practise their religion. With this presentation they have sufficiently proven the possibility of a Violation of their constitutional right from Art. 4 par. 1 and 2 GG, Which is also an individual constitutional right. That the appellants under 3) and 4) no longer belong to the Local Spiritual Assembly, has not 1essened their original interest in a decision of the case. How a change in the situation affects a Constitutional Appeal already made, is to be decided in each individual case, taking into consideration the contested act of sovereignty underlying the appeal, the significance of the constitutional guarantee appealed to and the purposes of the Constitutional Appeal (BVerfGE 76, 1 <3 8>). In the present case the basic significance of the Constitutional Question brought up is to be considered, and further, that the appellants under 3) and 4) can again become members of the Local Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís in elections, and further court proceedings in case of renewed applications for registration in the Court’s Register of Associations are Tpossible (cf. also BVerfGE 21, 139 <143>).

3. The legitimate interest to take legal action as basis for the Constitutional Appeal is not Vitiated through the High State Court’s having based its decision also on the consideration not contested by the appellants, namely that Art. 9 par. 2 of the By-Laws does not guarantee, as regards calling a meeting of the members, the protection of minorities required in § 37 par. 1 BGB. Thus, this is obviously a question which plays only a subordinate role in the court proceedings. The appellants are ready to amend the By-Laws on this point. They cannot be expected to again go through a hopeless application after such an amendment.

[Page 594]594 THE Bahá’í WORLD C.

The Constitutional Appeals are justified.

The decisions of the Courts do not do justice to the significance of the constitutional right of freedom of religious association, guaranteed in Art. 4 par. 2 and 2 GG in connection with Art. 140 GG/137 par. 2 and 4 WRV, for the interpretation (and application) of the corporate law of the Code of Civil Law, and they thereby Violate the constitutional rights of the appellants.

1.

The Local Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Tfibingen and the believers of the Bahá’í Community are entitled to the constitutional right from Art. 4 par. 1 and 2 GG. A community’s mere assertion and self—understanding Of professing a religion and of being a religious community cannot justify reference for it and its members to the guarantee of religious freedom of Art. 4, par. 1 and 2 GG; rather it must be a religion and a religious community in fact, according to spiritual content and outward appearance. To examine and determine this in case of dispute is the duty of the organs of the State, of the courts in the final analysis,-—in application of the ruling of the State’s legal system. These cannot decide freely in such a case, but must base their decision on the concept of religion to which the meaning and purpose of the fundamental guarantee refers, as intended or set forth in the Constitution. In the present case it is not necessary to go more deeply into this, as the character of the Bahá’í Faith as a religion and of the Bahá’í Community as a religious community is evident, in actual everyday life, in cultural tradition, and in the understanding of the general public as well as of the science of comparative religion.

11.

Religious freedom in the meaning of Art. 4 par. 1 and 2 GG also includes freedom of religious association as it follows from this regulation in connection with the relevant Weimar Church Articles which are included by Art. 140 GG.

1. Freedom of religious association is not expressly mentioned in Art. 4 par. 1 and 2 GG; specifically guaranteed are freedom of religion, conscience, religious and ideological belief, as well as the freedom of religious practice. According to the judgements Of the Federal Constitutional Court the freedom of religion guaranteed in Art. 4 GG has to be understood in a comprehensive manner (of BVerfGE 24, 236 <244 ff.>). The intention of the framer Of the Constitution, after the experience of religious persecution by the National Socialist regime, was aimed at guaranteeing freedom of religion not just as particular partial freedoms, but fully. In any case none of the rights to religious freedom, which had been recognized in the Weimar Constitution as the result of hundreds of years of historical development, should now be excluded. A part of these fights to religious freedom was freedom of religion and conscience, including freedom of belief, freedom of private and public religious practice (freedom of worship) and freedom of religious association (cf. Art. 135, 136, 137 par. 2 WRV and G. Anschiitz, Die Religionsfreiheit [The Freedom of Religion], in: Anschiitz/ Thoma(Pub1.)1—IDStR, V01. 2, 1932, § 106, p. 681 ff).

This is confirmed by the history of its development. In the consultations of the Parliamentary Council, what was later to be Art. 4 expressly contained the guarantee of the freedom of

[Page 595]INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT BAHA’l ACTIVITIES 595

religious association (“The right of association for religious and ideological societies is recognized”), from its presentation by the Committee of Principles and the first reading in the Main Committee as sentence 2 of par. 1. Only in the fourth reading in the Main Committee on 4 May 1949—after inclusion of the Weimar Church Compromise into the Constitution—-this sentence was deleted with the reasoning that it is now unnecessary, because Art. 137 par. 2 WRV is now part of the Constitution (V.Doemming/ Fusslein/Matz, Entstehungsgeschichte der Artikel des Grundgesetzes [History of the Development of the Articles of the Constitution]: JoR, N.F., vol. 1, p. 73 foll.; Parl.Council, HA-Prot., 57th meeting on 4.5.1949, p. 745). From this it follows, according to the intention of the Parliamentary Council, that freedom of religious association is, and is to continue to be, guaranteed in Constitutional Law. It would be totally opposed to this ruling and to the intention of the framer of the Constitution, if it [freedom of religious association] were to be denied merely because of its deletion from Art. 4 which was only made in order to avoid a double guarantee, since it is part of the freedom of religion guaranteed in Constitutional Law. It is rather to be deduced that Art. 4 par. 1 and 2 GG refers for its guarantee of the freedom of religious association to Art. 140 GG/ 137 par. 2 WRV and includes its normative content.

2. The guarantee of freedom of religious association includes the freedom to form and organize as a religious association based on a common Faith. Even the concept of religious association points to the fact that a union on the basis of State Law is intended, and not just a mere spiritual community of worship. The possibility of forming a religious association is to open the way to organizing as a union of people for the realization of a common religious purpose, to give some legal form, and to participate in general legal proceedings. This is not meant as a right to a particular legal form, such as that of an incorporated association or some other form of legal person; guaranteed is, however, the possibility of a legal existence in some form or other, including participation in general legal proceedings.

It is in conformity with this that Art. 140 GG in connection with Art. 137 par. 4 WRV opens and guarantees to religious communities the possibility of acquiring legal capacity according to the general conditions of Civil Law. These conditions have to be observed by everyone on principle, including religious communities. Nothing is therefore lost, if a religious community or one of its parts cannot acquire a particular legal form it is aspiring to, because of a special organization rooted in its belief. Freedom of religious association demands, however, that the self—understanding of the religious community, insofar as it is rooted in the freedom of religious belief and confession guaranteed in Art. 4 par. 1 GG and is realized in the practice of the religion protected by Art. 4 par. 2 GG, is to be especially considered in the interpretation and application of the relevant law, here of corporate law of the Code of Civil Law (of. BverfGE 53, 366 <401> m.w.N.). This means not only that the religious community is allowed to make full use of the leeway in organization opened to it by Dispositive Law [i.e. Law that is amenable to negotiation]. Even in the application of compulsory regulations leeways of interpretation are to be used in favour of the religious community if necessary; this must not, however, lead to neglect of imperative consideration of the security of legal proceedings or of the rights of others.

It would be incompatible with the fréedom of religious association, if a religious community, in View of its internal organization, were to be denied participation in general legal proceedings entirely, or this were made possible only under unacceptable conditions

[Page 596]

596 THE Bahá’í WORLD

III.

The contested decisions do not satisfy the normative content of the freedom of religious association described. The corporate law of the Code of Civil Law admits of taking into account special requirements of internal organization resulting from the individuality of religious associations which are a part of a religious community or in some special relationship to it. Since the legal form of a ‘Korperschaft des offentlichen Rechts’ [Corporate Body under Public Law] is not available to the Bahá’ís (1 following), this is applicable to the Local Spiritual Assembly, from Art. 4 part 1 and 2 GG (2 f011owing).

1. The Bahá’í Community cannot acquire the character of a Corporate Body under Public Law according to Art. 140 GG/Art. 137 par. 5 WRV. With this form of organization the existing problems would be solved, because in the framework of a “Corporate Body under Public Law” which in connection with the regulations of Art. 137 par. 5 WRV functions only as a b1anket concept, the inclusion into a hierarchical structure, as it appears to be given for the Bahá’ís in their belief, could be fully realized organizationally. This is shown, for examp1e, in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, for which a hierarchical organizational structure is determined which acquires validity in State Law without diminution. Thus, church parishes are established or dissolved by the local bishop alone, after a hearing in the Diocesan Council of Priests, without the advice or the agreement of the priest or the congregation of the church or of a body selected by the congregation being necessary (Can. 515, § 2 i.V.m. Can. 127, §§ 1 and 2 CIC). The appellants have, however, shown that recognition as a Corporate Body under Public Law is out of the question for the Bahá’í Community, according to the relevant recommendations of the Conference of the Ministers of Religion and as the result of an enquiry to the Ministry of Religion of Hessen; it had only about 4,000 to 5,000 members in the Federal Republic in the year 1986, who moreover were divided among approximately 50 local Bahá’í communities. It cannot be said that the denial of recognition as a Corporate Body under Public Law is legally incorrect or even wrong in view of these circumstances and of the criteria of Art. 137 par. 5 WRV. Therefore it is uncertain whether the Bahá’í Community, were the acquisition of the character of a Corporate Body under Public Law possible for it, could be referred to it without losing its right to freedom granted in Art. 4 par. 1 and 2 GG, or would have a choice of legal form.

2. It is possible in the framework of the corporate law of the Code of Civil Law, and it is demanded by Constitutional Law, that the religious requirements for the internal organization of the Local Spiritual Assemb1y of the Bahá’ís as a religious association and as part of a religious community be especially considered.

a) The regulations of the By-Laws presented, which were considered by the Courts to be incompatible with the principle of independence and self—administration (autonomy of the Association), on the establishment of membership (Art. 3 par. 2), removal from membership (Art. 4 par. 2) and the dissolution of the Association (Art. 14 par. 1 letter b), the requirements for amendment of the By-Laws (Art. 13 par. 2) and the definition of the tasks of the Association (Art. 11 par. 1 letter 0), do not concern those regulations of corporate law Which, in the interest of the security and ciarity of legal proceedings, regulate the affairs and legal relations with external effects (appointment or removal of the officers, their power of representation, liability of the assets of the Association, liquidation in case of disso1ution of the Association etc). They refer solely to the internal organization of the Association.

b) The regulations contested are not in contradiction to the wording of the regulations of corporate law on the internal organization of the Association. The dissolution of the Association regulated in § 41 BGB by decision of the general meeting of members is not excluded

[Page 597]

INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT BAHA’l ACTIVITIES 597

but supplemented by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís’ right of dissolution; on neither the manner of the establishment of membership, nor on the possibilities for removal, does § 58 BGB contain any regulation; the regulation of § 33 BGB on amendment of the By-Laws is dispositive [not obligatory] (§ 40 BGB); on the definition of the tasks of the Association there is no legal regulation.

0) The courts justify the inadmissibility of the mentioned By-Laws merely on the basis of their incompatibility With the principle of corporate autonomy characterizing corporate law. This principle of corporate autonomy is not expressly laid down in the corporate laws of the BGB; rather it is deduced from jurisprudence and from the doctrine of the totality of regulations, Which trace back the bringing into being and organization of an association, as well as the conduct of its affairs, to the Will of the members of the association. Its aim, similar to that of private autonomy, is to preserve the character of the association as a union of persons carried on mainly by the Will and action of its members (KG, OLGZ 1974, p. 385 <387>; RGRK—Steffen, 12th ed., marginal No. 31 f. before § 21, § 25 marginal No. 1; StaudingerCoing, 12th ed., introd. remark to §§ 21~54, marginal No. 38; AK-Ott, § 25 marginal No. 15 f.; of. also Flume, Allgemeiner Teil des Bfirgerlichen Rechts [General Part of Civil Law] I/2, 1983, p. 189 f.). Part of this autonomy is to give institutions Which are provided with it the right to give themselves the organization suitable to their aims, and to freely determine it, as long as there are no binding provisions or principles derived from the character of the particular institution Which are contrary to it. It is emphasized in jurisdiction that this autonomy can also be practised in such a way, that the right of self—administration of the association is limited by its Constitution; such a limitation also represents a practice of autonomy; it is therefore a curtailment of autonomy when such regulations are declared inadmissible (cf. KG, OLGZ 1974, p. 385 <387>; Diitz, 2. F8 for Herschel, 1982, p. 55 <73 ff.>; a.A. Flume, a.a.O., p. 194 ff.).

The principle of corporate autonomy, as it is understood in legal judgements and literature, is thus marked by two tendencies in regard to its content, Which do not necessarily run parallel: on the one hand it protects autonomy in the formation of the organizational structure of the association according to the free self—determination of the members, to Which can also belong integration in a hierarchically organized community; on the other hand it protects the self~detemiination of the association and its members from a renunciation Which almost totally defeats their own self-determination. It does not exclude the possibility, rather it opens up the way, to an equalization in the interpretation and application of both tendencies, by taking into consideration the concrete case, i.e. in relation to the aims and individuality of the Association in question. Thus it is considered consistent With corporate autonomy, to create associations at different levels, inside Which the lower-level associations——be they of legal capacity or not—are in a relation of dependency to the superior associations, but do not thereby lose their character as associations, as long as they also pursue tasks independently (Reichert/ Dannecker/Kfihr, Handbuch des Vereins- und Verbandsrechts [Handbook of the Law governing Associations and Unions], 4th ed. 1987, marginal No. 2098 ff.; Soergel—Hadding, marginal No. 53 before § 21; BGHZ 90, p. 331).

d) If, in this connection, one oonsidérs the individuality of religious associations Which are organized as parts of a religious community, it is obvious, in View of the frequently observable hierarchical internal organization rooted in the belief of religious communities, that associations Which are part of religious communities, or in a particular relationship to them, Wish to be integrated into the hierarchy of their religious community. This cannot automatically be considered as submission to outside third-party influence Which threatens the essential independence and self-administration of the association.

[Page 598]5 98 THE BAHA’l WORLD

aa) Autonomy in the formation and organization of a religious association can be practised in such a way, that one of the aims of the association is to be part of a religious community and to integrate into the structure determined by its religious laws. Such selfdetermined aims of integration Which, in the case of a religious association, may well represent an expression of the religious self—determination of the members in their common Faith, must not be judged simply as surrender of the self-determination of the association. A limit is reached only When the self—determination and self—administration of the association is ruled out, not only in certain respects as a consequence of the hierarchical integration arising from the religious law, but greatly beyond that; the association would then no longer be carried on mainly by the Will of its members, but would become a mere administrative centre or would be run for the separate estate of another party (cf. KG, OLGZ 1974, p. 385 <390>; BayobLGZ 1979, p. 303 <308 ff.>).

According to the above, corporate law permits, in the case of a religious association constituted as part of a religious community, that limitations in the autonomous rights of dissolution, removal or activity shall not be considered as inadmissible external third—party influence incompatible With corporate autonomy, as long as they serve, and are limited to, safeguarding integration into the greater religious community in the framework of existing ties of religious laW—such as the preservation and identity of belief and basic duties of daily living. With such a limitation to the powers of intervention of a hierarchically superior institution, Which only claims for itself some kind of authority over the teachings and con‘esponding rights of jurisdiction, a sufficient share of self-determination and self—administration of the association is preserved.

bb) By considering the influence of the National Spiritual Assembly specified in the ByLaws in regard to the continuance, membership and activities of the Local Spiritual Assembly as constituting in general an inadmissible third—party influence over the Association, the courts have misunderstood the character of religious associations Which, as part of their belief, organize themselves hierarchically as part of a religious community, and thus have misconstrued the significance of the Constitutional Law of freedom of religious association for the interpretation and application of the principle of corporate autonomy. They have considered the National Spiritual Assembly to be an extraneous organization, characterized by different aims and interests, exercising a dominating influence, Without considering the unity and mutuality linked to religious law. It is no different With the conclusion concerning the election of the members of the Local Spiritual Assembly by the believers of the local Bahá’í community. These, by virtue of the ties of religious law, are not third parties subjecting the Association to an alien influence from outside and thereby annulling its selfdetermination; rather, this manner of establishing membership is in accordance With the purpose of the Association to administer the affairs of the local Bahá’í Community as a hierarchical governing body (Art. 2 par. 1 of the By-Laws and Preamble), and it precisely serves its realization.

e) Nor can an inadmissible third—party influence be deduced from the fact that, in case of dissolution of the Association by the National Spiritual Assembly, the assets Wlll fall to it (Art. 14 par. 1 and 2 Of the ByaLavivs). The purpose of this provision of the By-Laws is not that of enabling the National Spiritual Assembly, by making use of its right of dissolution, to seize another’s assets for the purpose of increasing its own assets. This is contradicted by the fact that according to the By-Laws no contributions are levied With the purpose of accumulating assets; the financing of the Association is solely through voluntary donations; moreover, the Association has expressly subordinated itself to the legal conditions of charitable purpose (Art. 2 par. 2 and 3 of the By-Laws). ‘

[Page 599]

INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT Bahá’í ACTIVITIES 599 IV.

The cited decisions therefore Violate the appellants’ constitutional right from Art. 4 par. 1 and 2 GG in connection with Art. 140 GG/ 137 par. 2 and 4 WRV, in that they do not sufficiently consider, in the interpretation and application of the meaning of corporate autonomy, the character of the Local Spiritual Assembly as a religious Association and as part of a religious community. They are therefore to be revoked. The case is to be referred back to the District Court for renewed consideration. It Will have to examine, among other things, Whether the right of dissolution and removal accorded the National Spiritual Assembly, expressed Without limits in the By-Laws, is sufficiently limited by the purpose of the Association and the Preamble to the Constitution, in the sense of the explanations under 111 2 d) aa), or if an express definition in the By-Laws is needed.

The decision on the costs follows from § 34a par. 2 BVerGG. Mahrenholz Béckenférde Klein

Grthof Kruis FranB en Kirchhof Winter

[Page 600]600 THE Bahá’í WORLD

(DECISION OF THE GERMAN FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT)

ELUCIDATION OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Elucidation in German Elucidation in English

a.A. andere Ansicht Other opinion or View

a.a.0. am angegeben Ort (bereits idem. (from the source already vorher Zitierte Quel1e) cited)

AK-Ott Kommentar zum Commentary on the Code of Bfirgerlichen Gesetzbuch Civil Law (series of (Reihe Altemativkommentare), alternative commentaries), 1. Auflage1979ff. lst edition 1979ff. Ott = Bearbeiter Ott = name of author

BayobLGZ Bayerisches Oberstes Landes- Bavarian Supreme State Court, gericht, Enscheidungssammlung Collection of decisions in in Zivflsachen civil matters.

BGB Bfirgerliches Gesetzbuch Book of the code of civil law

BGHZ Bundesgerichtshof, Federal Court, decisions Entscheidungen in Zivilsachen in civil matters

BverfGE Bundesverfassungsgericht, Federal Constitutional Court, Entscheidungen Decisions

BverfGG Gesetz fiber das Bundesver- Law on the Federal Constitufassungsgericht in der Fassung tional Court in the draft of vom 3.2.1971 3 February 1971

BVR Registerzeichen (163 Registration symbol of the Bundesverfassungsgerichts fiir Federal Constitutional Court Verfassungsbeschwerden for constitutional appeals

Can. Canon Canon (Le. in relation to the Canon

.1 Law of the Church) CIC Codex Iuris Canonici ‘ Codex of Canon Law FGG Reichsgesetz fiber die Imperial Law on voluntary

freiwfllige Gerichtsbarkeit vom 17.5.1898

jurisdiction of 17 May 1898

[Page 601]INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT Bahá’í ACTIVITIES

(continued) Abbreviation

FS ffir Herschel

GG

GReg

HA—Prot

HDStR

i.V.m. m.W.N.

OLGZ

RGRK-Steffen

WRV

Elucidation in German

Festschrift ffir Herschel

Grundgesetz fur die Bundesrepublik Deutschland vom 23.5.1949

Gerichtsregister

Protokolle des Hauptausschusses des Parlamentarischen Rates

Handbuch des deutschen Staatskirchenrechts

in Verbindung mit mit weiteren Nachweisen

Entscheidungen der Oberlandesgerichte in Zivilsachen

Das Bfirgerliche Gesetzbuch mit besonderer Berficksichtigung der Rechtsprechung, des Reichsgerichts und des Bundesgerichtshofes, Kommentar, 12. Auflage

1 974ff.

Steffen = Bearbeiter

Weimarer Verfassung vom 1 1 .8. 1919

601

Elucidation in English

Publication in honour of Herschel

Basic Law (Constitution) of the Federal Republic of Germany of 23 May 1949

Court Register

Minutes of the Main Committee of the Parliamentary Council

Handbook of German State Church Law

In connection With With further indications

Decisions of the High State Courts in civil matters

The Code of Civil Law With special reference to legal pronouncements, to the Imperial Court and to the Federal Court, Commentary, 12th edition 1974ff.

Steffen = Name of author

Weimar Constitution of 11 August 1919

[Page 602]602

THE BAHA’T WORLD

DECISION OF THE GERMAN FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE

In a decision handed down on 5 February 199] the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany upheld a constitutional appeal made by the Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of T fibingen. This decision is of such far-reaching importance that the Universal House of Justice has asked that the following summary of its background and effects be sent to all National Spiritual Assemblies. This summary is freely based on an article prepared by Dr. Udo Schaefer at the request of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís ofGermany for publication in “Bahd ’z' Nachrichten the newsletter of the German Bahá’í community.

I.

The Bahá’í Administrative Order has so many unique features, and is so different from the organizational structure of most other religions, that not infrequently difficulties are experienced in conveying to the authorities in some countries a clear understanding of the nature of our institutions, and thus of obtaining a status that is accorded to other similar bodies under civil law.

In Germany, for example, 95% of all associations are recognized as being “of public benefit”. This is similar to what is known as “charitable status” in other countries, and is the basis for the granting of various tax exemptions. Over the years the Spiritual Assemblies in Germany repeatedly experienced difficulty with the Inland Revenue offices until the National Spiritual Assembly turned to the Federal Minister of Finance, who issued a decree on 6 August 1990 clarifying that the Spiritual Assemblies of the Bahá’ís “serve the promotion of religious purposes” and thus have publicbenefit status. Even after this, one of the

Revenue Offices continued to insist that the

By-Laws of a Spiritual Assembly needed to be amended.

A second problem was that of the form under which Bahá’í Spiritual Assemblies could be incorporated. This was the problem

that eventually came before the Federal Constitutional Court, namely, whether the Local Spiritual Assemblies could be incorporated under German Law using the ByLaws that are the universal Bahá’í standard. When different legal systems collide there are always problems, and this was the case here, where Bahá’í constitutional law seemed to be incompatible with German civil law. In order to make these problems intelligible and to explain the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, it is necessary to consider the historical background.

11. Firstly, it is necessary to understand that the Bahá’í Community is not only a religious community but also a community of law. The believers are linked together not only by the tie of belief and love, but also by the legal norms with which the Founder of our Faith has endowed His community, legal norms Which govern the structure of the community, its administrative organs and its functions. The main sources of these legal norms, which are to be found throughout the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, are the Kitab-i—Aqdas, the Kitab—i-‘Ahd and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Will and Testament, as well as the works of Shoghi Effendi who, as the Authorized Interpreter, expounded and

[Page 603]INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT BAHA’l ACTIVITIES 603

elaborated these norms in his letters (especially in those published in Bahá’í' Administration and The World Order ofBahd ’u ’llcih).

The revelation of the laws of the Faith, and their application in practice has been a very gradual process. Bahá’u’lláh had appointed four Hands of the Cause of God during His own lifetime, and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá had brought into being embryonic Local Spiritual Assemblies, but the raising up of the institutions of the Administrative Order really started With the ministry of Shoghi Effendi.

In the establishment of the Administrative Order the American Bahá’í Community played a leading role. In the twenties, under the unerring guidance of the Guardian, the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada formulated a constitution for itself, consisting of a Declaration of Trust and By-Laws, and one for Local Spiritual Assemblies, comprising a set of By-Laws, all based on the laws and principles of the Faith, and in a form through which these institutions could incorporate (obtain legal capacity) under American law. In doing this, the difficulty was to mould the non—codified Bahá’í laws and principles into forms made available by civil law for the attainment of legal capacity. With the expert help of American jurists, constitutions were worked out for the National Assembly and the Local Assemblies which were endorsed by Shoghi Effendi and prescribed by him as the pattern for the establishment of the Bahá’í Administration in other parts of the world.

111. When, after the Second World War, the Spiritual Assemblies that had been dissolved under the Nazi regime were re-established in Germany, the National Spiritual Assembly adopted the Declaration of Trust and By-Laws which formed the national Bahá’í constitution, and the By-Laws of a Local Spiritual Assembly which were the standard local Bahá’í constitution, simply translating them from English into German. Wherever

the Local Assemblies attained legal capacity, they were incorporated with these By-Laws.

As the establishment of the judicial system of the German Federal Republic progressed, the scrutiny of articles of incorporation became increasingly strict, and Local Spiritual Assemblies which wished to incorporate met with more and more difficulties. The standard By-Laws corresponded to American legal concepts and were expressed in American legal language. These were radically at variance with the concepts of German law and thus, in many instances barely comprehensible to German lawyers.

Under the pressure of this experience the German Bahá’í institutions acquired the understanding that, while the fundamental structures and principles of our law as “Divine Law” are unalterable, they have to be expressed in different terminology according to the legal systems of particular countries. This experience was shared by other Bahá’í communities around the world.

Thus, in the seventies, with the agreement of the Universal House of Justice, new By-Laws, which are faithful to the Bahá’í standard constitution and are also in accordance with German Law, were drafted and introduced as a pattern for all Local Spiritual Assemblies in Germany. All Spiritual Assemblies in the Federal Republic are today incorporated according to these sample ByLaws. The National Spiritual Assembly also prepared a new constitution for itself, but this has not yet been registered, because the Court of Registration concerned was awaiting the decision of the F ederal Constitutional Court.

Although this development placed the German Spiritual Assemblies in an incomparably better position in relation to the Courts of Registration, it soon became clear that the legal construction of the By-Laws was still not easily conveyed to the courts concerned. It is not the community (with the Assembly as its managing body) which is the association, but the Assembly itself, which is elected by the members of the community; this is an

[Page 604]604 THE Bahá’í WORLD

unusual construction in Germany. Normally, membership in an association is attained by joining it, but membership in a Spiritual Assembly is through election by a “third party”, the community. Normally in Germany, an Association has a minimum size (7 members) and has no upper limit. As against that the membership of the Assembly is limited in number: it has nine members, no fewer and no more. In spite of these difficulties it was usually possible to overcome the Registrar’s objections and obtain legal incorporation. Sometimes this required proceedings in the law courts.

IV.

The legal administrator of the District Court of Tubingen was especially obstinate. He objected to no less than eight points in the By-Laws and finally, on 8 December 1983, refused incorporation. The legal measures taken against this decision were unsuccessful. The State Court of Tubingen rej ected the further appeal of 5 May 1985. The High State Court in Stuttgart, to which the case was subsequently appealed, rejected it on 27 January 1986.

With that the legal measures were exhausted, and this would have meant that the Spiritual Assembly of Tfibingen would never be able to incorporate with the By-Laws of the standard local Bahá’í constitution. Beyond this, when the decision of the High State Court in Stuttgart was published in the legal literature, a number of other courts, alerted by this decision, demanded that incorporated Local Assemblies amend their By-Laws or else face cancellation of their existing incorporation.

The decision of the High State Court in Stuttgart was founded on the principle of corporate autonomy which appliesto associ ations under German civil incorporation

law. According to this, an association is an autonomous body free from third—party influence and is subject only to the law of the land. The fact that Local Spiritual Assemblies are linked in a hierarchy and that

their superior institutions, the National Assembly and the Universal House of Justice, have a series of rights of intervention according to the By-Laws, is seen to Violate this principle of corporate autonomy.

Thus a critical situation had arisen for the German Bahá’í Community. There was a great danger that all incorporated Spiritual Assemblies, including the National Spiritual Assembly, would be deprived of their legal capacity.

The German Constitution provides a possibility for recognized religious communities to incorporate, in certain circumstances, under “public law” rather than as associations under civil law. But this presupposes a minimum number of members which the German Bahá’í community is still far from having reached.

The Spiritual Assemblies of the Bahá’ís must therefore have recourse to the corporate law of the German Code of Civil Law to achieve legal capacity. But, to obtain such registration the Spiritual Assemblies would have had to change the basic structures of their By-Laws. Such changes the Bahá’ís cannot and will not accept, because the essential structures of the constitutional law of our community are the Law of God and are therefore not open to compromise. These essential structures include the vertical form of institutional organization.

With all other legal means exhausted, the Federal Constitutional Court presented the last resort for the German Bahá’í community, but this presupposed that the decisions previously passed by the courts had violated the constitutional rights of the Spiritual Assembly of Tubingen. The National Spiritual Assembly was convinced that this was unmistakably the case. Article 4 of the German Constitution guarantees not just freedom of religious practice, which includes freedom of belief and worShip, but also freedom of organization. The decisions passed by the courts, and the interpretation of civil law underlying them, had led to the result that hierarchical integration within the framework of the

[Page 605]

INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT Bahá’í ACTIVITIES

Bahá’í Administration was made impossible for the Bahá’ís. Were these decisions to be enforced, each local Bahá’í community would be isolated from the rest of the Administrative Order. The community as a whole would no longer exist, it would be only an amorphous collection of autonomous bodies with no links to one another. The Bahá’í Community as the “People of God” embodied in a legal structure, would no longer exist. In this the National Assembly saw a Violation of Article 4 of the F ederal Constitution and concluded that the submission of a Constitutional Appeal was advisable.

Although, from the outset, this constitutional question had been referred to in writing, the courts concerned with the successive appeals on the case had not considered them at all.

After receiving the Constitutional Appeal, which was submitted in March 1986, the Federal Constitutional Court considered this extremely unusual matter very intensively. It even requested original literature from the German Bahá’í Publishing Trust, asked for and examined numerous By-Laws of other associations, Christian and Islamic, and solicited Views from the F ederal Minister of Justice and from the Ministry of Justice of Baden-Wfirttemberg, the Evangelical Church in Germany and the Institute for State Church Law of the Dioceses of Germany (on the question of corporate autonomy in the case of church associations). The two Ministries of Justice expressed an opinion very unfavourable to the Bahá’ís, concluding that the contested decisions had been passed correctly and so the Constitutional Appeal was unfounded.

The Federal Constitutional Court took a long time to reach its decision. It had to bonsider the far-reaching consequences which a decision in our favour could have. Would it not open wide the floodgates for organizations unjustifiably calling themselves “religions” to make use of this decision in future?

605

V.

The decision which the Federal Constitution Court reached, wholly in our favour, on 5 February 1991, is a relatively rare decision in the field of State Church Law in Germany, and for this alone it constitutes a highly significant precedent in the formulation and development of German Law.

For the German Bahá’í Community this decision, as shown by the above explanations, is of far—reaching significance and cannot be overestimated: It ensures the legal status of the community and brings to an end all attempts by the courts to require the amendment of the basic structures of our By-Laws. 1t confirms once and for all the right of the Bahá’ís to be organized as a hierarchically structured legal community according to the revealed Law of God.

The decision first of all sets a limit to its application, in a statement that is of the greatest importance as a testimony to the widespread recognition of the Bahá’í Faith as an independent religious community. It explains that the mere assertion of a community that it is a religious community is not sufficient for it to submit such a constitutional appeal. The authorities and courts have to examine in each specific case whether it is really a religion and a religious community, according to spiritual content and external appearances. Here the Court states: “In the present case it is not necessary to go more deeply into this, as the character of the Bahá’í Faith as a religion and the Bahá’í Community as a religious community is evident, in actual everyday life, cultural tradition, and in the understanding of the general public as well as of the science of comparative religion.”

In its decision, the Federal Constitutional Court reviewed in detail the constitutional right of freedom of religious organization and came to the conclusion that the lower courts, in arriving at their decisions, had not done justice to this constitutional right; that it is possible, within the framework of the German civil law governing incorporations,

[Page 606]606

to give special consideration to the religious requirements governing the internal organization of the Local Spiritual Assembly as a religious association and as part of a religious community; and, moreover, that Constitutional Law demands that such special consideration be given.

The Court pointed out that, because associations which are part of religious communities wish to be integrated into the hierarchy of their religious community, the granting of the right of intervention to superior institutions cannot be considered as submission to an external influence which would threaten the essential independence of the association or its right to administer itself. The Federal Constitutional Court concluded that the courts acting in this case had misunderstood the constitutional right of freedom of religious organization in the interpretation and application of the principle of corporate autonomy, in that they had considered the National Spiritual Assembly “to

be an extraneous organization, characterized V

by different aims and interests, exercising a dominating influence, without considering the unity and mutuality linked to religious law”. The same was true, the Court explained, for the election of the members of the Local Spiritual Assembly by the believers in the local community, who are not “third-parties”. From the reasons given for the decision it can be inferred that a positive decision was possible only because the Bahá’í Law, which underlies our constitutions as revealed Law, is an indispensable part of our Faith.

VI. The magnitude of the achievement this

THE Bahá’í WORLD

judgement represents in the efforts to preserve and ensure the legal status of the Spiritual Assemblies in Germany can be judged from the fact that only 1.5% of all Constitutional Appeals meet with success.

The National Spiritual Assembly had the wisdom to shrink from no effort or cost in order to ensure the best presentation of the case. It engaged a renowned Stuttgart firm of attorneys for its legal protection. The presentation of the case was in the hands of an expert in the fields of Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and State Church Law. Beyond that the National Spiritual Assembly solicited an opinion from a highly regarded expert in State Church Law at the University of Heidelberg (Professor Friedrich Mfiller). This profound opinion, comprising 115 pages, which clearly and convincingly sets forth the legal position of the Bahá’ís, was a great support for this Appeal and surely had an effect in helping to bring it to a successful conclusion. A gratifying side—effect of the work and funds devoted to this Appeal is to be found in the number of highly—placed ministerial officials, professors and scientific collaborators, who had to concern themselves intensively with the Faith, not to mention the judges of Germany’s highest Court. The decision will be included in the collection of official records and will be published in all the legal j ournals.

Undoubtedly further fruits will be gathered in the years ahead when this landmark decision assists judicial authorities in other lands to appreciate the stature of the Bahá’í Faith and the fundamental importance of the laws and principles embedded in its Sacred Scriptures.

[Page 607]PART FOUR

THE WORLD ORDER OF BAHA’U’LLAH

[Page 608]

r

THE BAHA’I WORLD

608

ice from the south.

Partial view Ofthe Seat Ofthe Universal House ofJust