US embassy cable - 05MADRID2273

UNCLAS MADRID 002273 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM, PGOV, SP 
SUBJECT: JUSTICE MINISTRY REJECTS REGISTRATION OF CHURCH OF 
SCIENTOLOGY 
 
 
1. Charge met on June 6 with Ministry of Justice Under 
Secretary Ana Maria Miguel and director of the MOJ's Office 
 
SIPDIS 
of Religious Affairs Mercedes Rico Carabias to discuss the 
MOJ's May 18 decision to reject the Church of Scientology's 
application to register as a religious organization.  Charge 
noted that the Church of Scientology was legally recognized 
in the U.S. and that we were requesting that it be afforded 
the same treatment in Spain as any other religious 
organization.  Miguel and Carabias said that the MOJ had 
determined that it could not register the Church of 
Scientology because the Spanish Supreme Court had twice 
upheld an earlier administrative decision to deny 
registration in 1993 and 1994.  MOJ acceptance of the Church 
of Scientology's new application for registration would in 
effect overturn those Supreme Court decisions, in violation 
of Spanish legal norms.  They proposed that the Church of 
Scientology's Spanish attorneys challenge the earlier denials 
of registration in the National Court, the Supreme Court, and 
the Constitutional Court. 
 
2. Carabias said the Office of Religious Affairs had not 
reviewed the substance of the Church of Scientology's 
application but, had there been no previous legal 
determination barring the Church's application, believed it 
would likely have been approved without difficulty.  She said 
she understood that the Church of Scientology would have 
prefered a favorable administrative decision by the Ministry 
of Justice, but that there was no recourse other than legal 
action.  Carabias said her office was only concerned with 
whether the organization (church) that filed the 2005 
application for registration was the same organization whose 
denial of registration had been upheld in 1993 and 1994. 
Once the MOJ found both organizations to be one and the same 
(same doctrine, organization, and leadership), the Office of 
Religious Affairs had no choice but to deny the applications. 
 
 
3. Carabias and Miguel disputed the Church of Scientology's 
contention that a 2001 determination by the Constitutional 
Court requiring the MOJ to accept the registration of the 
Unification Church (which had also been previously denied the 
right to register) created a precedent favorable to the 
Church of Scientology's case.  They said 2001 Constitutional 
Court's finding applied solely to the Unification Church and 
did not constitute an instruction to the MOJ to ignore prior 
legal decisions against registration applications by other 
denominations.  Miguel said that the Constitutional Court 
would likely find in favor of the Church of Scientology, 
though she acknowledged that the legal process could take 
several years. 
 
4. Charge pressed Miguel on whether the MOJ had the 
discretion to interpret the new application by the Church of 
Scientology, particularly in light of the fact that the new 
criteria for registration of religious organizations was 
substantially different than when the Church of Scientology 
made its original application.  Miguel said that the MOJ did 
not have such discretion and that the Minister of Justice had 
no authority to reverse a ruling of the Supreme Court. 
 
5. Charge noted that the rejection of the Church of 
Scientology's application for registration would be discussed 
in the Embassy's draft of the annual International Religious 
Freedom Report.  Carabias said that the GOS had great respect 
for the IRF and read it closely.  She said she hoped that any 
discussion of this issue in the IRF would be cast in the 
appropriate context - as an administrative decision. 
Carabias stressed that the GOS would not interfere with any 
of the activities of the Church of Scientology and, while she 
understood the Church wanted to register for reasons of 
principle, said the MOJ's refusal of its application would 
have no tangible effect.  For example, registration (or 
non-registration) had no bearing on a religious 
organization's tax exempt status.  Carabias said the main 
purpose of registration was as a means for the GOS to filter 
out organizations with a primarily commercial rather than 
religious character - an issue she insisted did not apply 
with respect to the Church of Scientology.  She said this 
case represented a "legal knot held over from the 1980s and 
1990s" and that there could only be a legal, not 
administrative solution. 
 
 
 
MANZANARES