SLOVENSKÁ REPUBLIKA DVADSAŤ ROKOV PO VSTUPE DO EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE. REFLEXIA A AKTUÁLNE VÝZVY.
Tieto dni uplynulo dvadsať rokov od vstupu Slovenskej republiky do Európskej únie, pätnásť rokov od prijatia spoločnej meny euro v SR a súčasne šesťdesiat rokov od smrti otca myšlienky úspešného povojnového konceptu zjednotenej Európy Roberta Schumana.Udalosti prístupového procesu a formovania členstva SR do EÚ pri historickom rozšírení EÚ v roku 2004 sú úzko spojené aj s históriou FM UK: viacerí členovia jej akademickej obce k tomuto dôležitému míľniku európskych dejín a najväčšej geopolitickej inovácii 20. storočia, profesionálne prispeli.
9. mája 2024, pri príležitosti Dňa Európy, výročia Schumanovej deklarácie, prorektor UK doc. Mgr. Jozef Tancer, PhD., dekan FM UK prof. Mgr. Peter Štarchoň, PhD. a vedúci Katedry medzinárodného manažmentu doc. PhDr. Marian Šuplata, PhD. privítali bývalého hlavného vyjednávača SR pre vstup do Európskej únie a historicky prvého slovenského eurokomisára Jána Figeľa.
Vzácny hosť sa so študentmi nemeckého a francúzskeho programu ŠP Medzinárodný manažment a ďalšími členmi akademickej obce podelil o svoje cenné skúsenosti a odborné poznatky, podčiarkujúce význam odkazu Roberta Schumana a o pohľady na uplynulé procesy a nadchádzajúce výzvy európskej integrácie. Vyzdvihol tiež spoluprácu a aktivity Katedry medzinárodného manažmentu pod vedením doc. PhDr. Mariana Šuplatu, PhD.: osobitne jej dôležitého piliera – kritického rozvoja aktuálnych poznatkov v oblasti európskej integrácie, založených na hodnotovom odkaze Roberta Schumana a Konrada Adenauera a zdôraznil jedinečnú hodnotu tohto významného dedičstva v kontexte univerzitného vzdelávania.
With the EU’s current research and innovation programme, Horizon Europe, ending in 2027, the ground is now being set for its successor: one that needs to match the caliber of Europe’s knowledge base with the creativity and precision needed to drive the bloc’s competitiveness for the next decade, write José Manuel Barroso and Ján Figel.
José Manuel Barroso is former President of the European Commission. Ján Figel is former European Commissioner for Innovation, Research, Culture, Education and Youth, and a current member of the EIT Governing Board.
Important discussions are being held about the future of Europe’s research and innovation landscape, as Horizon Europe – one of the largest frameworks worldwide, with a strong traction outside of the EU – will come to a wrap in the next couple of years.
Twenty years ago, we found ourselves at the centre of similar discussions, debating the needs for Europe’s future innovation strategy. Back then, a bold idea was put forward: an institute for innovation needs to be created, one whose sole mission is to become an ecosystem for pan-European innovation by better connecting the “knowledge triangle” of education, research, and business.
Silos hinder innovation, especially between countries, and unfortunately prevent great research and science from being put into products and services that address societal challenges. An innovative entrepreneur should be able to walk into an office in Portugal and get support to grow and access a new market in Slovakia, on either side of the continent, or beyond the EU.
The European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) was born out of this idea – and in the past fifteen years, it has been connecting the missing links necessary for innovation to flourish, bringing together the worlds of business, research, and education.
But the EIT was set up in a distinctive way: it wouldn’t just bring together brilliant minds from different sectors, but give them the autonomy to focus on innovation in a bottom-up approach, whilst also guiding their direction. This way, public and private investment was focused on innovating in areas that deliver on the EU’s strategic priorities.
Through this approach, the EIT set up organisations known as Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs), each in a sector that responded to a pressing global challenge from energy, health, food, and raw materials to mobility, climate, manufacturing, and digitalisation.
Partners were brought together and challenged to evolve: universities were capitalised on to increase entrepreneurship education among engineers, businesses were involved to help develop curricula and access talent, and research centers were supported to commercialise products from the laboratory.
Looking back, no one would have imagined the pace at which the EIT would grow, becoming arguably the world’s largest innovation ecosystem.
Today, its impact speaks for itself: with over 50 innovation hubs throughout Europe, the EIT has supported over 10000 companies, helping them raise over €9.5 billion in private investment and launch more than 2400 new products on the market.
One of these products came from Northvolt, the Swedish EV battery giant that today is worth over €10 billion and has five gigafactories planned in Europe and North America. The firm – founded by two former Tesla engineers who returned to Europe – credits the EIT Community as being one of its first supporters, helping it with seed funding and connecting it to investors and customers.
Another burgeoning success came from Dr. Laura Soucek, who, though the help of three different EIT accelerators, connected with experts and investors – which in turn allowed her start-up, Peptomyc, to reach the milestone of publishing in February this year, evidencing the safety and efficacy of its novel cancer therapy.
Thanks to early EIT support, Peptomyc grew to a stage where it was able to get funding from the European Innovation Council Accelerator for mature-stage start-ups.
The EIT has also sparked an innovation in how the EU can mobilise local and regional partners to create sustainable ecosystems. The EIT KICs were set up with a lifecycle of 15 years – so that, with the right steering, they would then be able to survive without EIT funding.
Fast forward to today and this 15-year milestone is fast approaching with the EIT’s first three KICs -one of which is even being valued close to €1billion – all in good financial standing. With their expertise, these KICs have carved out leadership roles chairing industrial alliances in key strategic policy areas such as carbon-neutral European cities, batteries and artificial intelligence.
Reflecting on the EIT’s mandate, and given the need for collaboration to solve strategic challenges (most recently evidenced by the EIT’s new programme to skill 1 million workers in under three years), an important lesson can be learned going forward: to not stop what works.
The new European Research and Innovation programme should continue to invest in models that work, like the EIT, but also to propose bold and targeted ideas that reflect the strength of the EU in fostering collaboration.
We face a whole new set of pressing global challenges – including the defense of our continent with two wars at our doorsteps, the proliferation of machine learning, and the scarcity of natural resources on our planet.
With the results the EIT has been able to showcase in its first 15 years, it’s imperative is to enable growth for the next decade. We can be proud of the successful innovators, businesses, and universities Europe is home to, and of the distinctive model of European open innovation. Let’s not lose this perspective when looking towards the future.
With the EU’s current research and innovation programme, Horizon Europe, ending in 2027, the ground is now being set for its successor: one that needs to match the caliber of Europe’s knowledge base with the creativity and precision needed to drive the bloc’s competitiveness for the next decade, write José Manuel Barroso and Ján Figel.
José Manuel Barroso is former President of the European Commission. Ján Figel is former European Commissioner for Innovation, Research, Culture, Education and Youth, and a current member of the EIT Governing Board.
Important discussions are being held about the future of Europe’s research and innovation landscape, as Horizon Europe – one of the largest frameworks worldwide, with a strong traction outside of the EU – will come to a wrap in the next couple of years.
Twenty years ago, we found ourselves at the centre of similar discussions, debating the needs for Europe’s future innovation strategy. Back then, a bold idea was put forward: an institute for innovation needs to be created, one whose sole mission is to become an ecosystem for pan-European innovation by better connecting the “knowledge triangle” of education, research, and business.
Silos hinder innovation, especially between countries, and unfortunately prevent great research and science from being put into products and services that address societal challenges. An innovative entrepreneur should be able to walk into an office in Portugal and get support to grow and access a new market in Slovakia, on either side of the continent, or beyond the EU.
The European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) was born out of this idea – and in the past fifteen years, it has been connecting the missing links necessary for innovation to flourish, bringing together the worlds of business, research, and education.
But the EIT was set up in a distinctive way: it wouldn’t just bring together brilliant minds from different sectors, but give them the autonomy to focus on innovation in a bottom-up approach, whilst also guiding their direction. This way, public and private investment was focused on innovating in areas that deliver on the EU’s strategic priorities.
Through this approach, the EIT set up organisations known as Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs), each in a sector that responded to a pressing global challenge from energy, health, food, and raw materials to mobility, climate, manufacturing, and digitalisation.
Partners were brought together and challenged to evolve: universities were capitalised on to increase entrepreneurship education among engineers, businesses were involved to help develop curricula and access talent, and research centers were supported to commercialise products from the laboratory.
Looking back, no one would have imagined the pace at which the EIT would grow, becoming arguably the world’s largest innovation ecosystem.
Today, its impact speaks for itself: with over 50 innovation hubs throughout Europe, the EIT has supported over 10000 companies, helping them raise over €9.5 billion in private investment and launch more than 2400 new products on the market.
One of these products came from Northvolt, the Swedish EV battery giant that today is worth over €10 billion and has five gigafactories planned in Europe and North America. The firm – founded by two former Tesla engineers who returned to Europe – credits the EIT Community as being one of its first supporters, helping it with seed funding and connecting it to investors and customers.
Another burgeoning success came from Dr. Laura Soucek, who, though the help of three different EIT accelerators, connected with experts and investors – which in turn allowed her start-up, Peptomyc, to reach the milestone of publishing in February this year, evidencing the safety and efficacy of its novel cancer therapy.
Thanks to early EIT support, Peptomyc grew to a stage where it was able to get funding from the European Innovation Council Accelerator for mature-stage start-ups.
The EIT has also sparked an innovation in how the EU can mobilise local and regional partners to create sustainable ecosystems. The EIT KICs were set up with a lifecycle of 15 years – so that, with the right steering, they would then be able to survive without EIT funding.
Fast forward to today and this 15-year milestone is fast approaching with the EIT’s first three KICs -one of which is even being valued close to €1billion – all in good financial standing. With their expertise, these KICs have carved out leadership roles chairing industrial alliances in key strategic policy areas such as carbon-neutral European cities, batteries and artificial intelligence.
Reflecting on the EIT’s mandate, and given the need for collaboration to solve strategic challenges (most recently evidenced by the EIT’s new programme to skill 1 million workers in under three years), an important lesson can be learned going forward: to not stop what works.
The new European Research and Innovation programme should continue to invest in models that work, like the EIT, but also to propose bold and targeted ideas that reflect the strength of the EU in fostering collaboration.
We face a whole new set of pressing global challenges – including the defense of our continent with two wars at our doorsteps, the proliferation of machine learning, and the scarcity of natural resources on our planet.
With the results the EIT has been able to showcase in its first 15 years, it’s imperative is to enable growth for the next decade. We can be proud of the successful innovators, businesses, and universities Europe is home to, and of the distinctive model of European open innovation. Let’s not lose this perspective when looking towards the future.
Ján Figeľ. (Zdroj: FOTO ARCHÍV SME – GABRIEL KUCHTA)
BRATISLAVA. Slovenský integračný príbeh bol úspešný, zaujímavý a zostáva inšpirujúcim pre mnohých doma i v zahraničí. Pre TASR to uviedol Ján Figeľ, ktorý bol hlavným vyjednávačom vstupu Slovenska do Európskej únie aj prvým slovenským eurokomisárom.
Slovensko si 1. mája pripomína 20 rokov od vstupu do Únie. Figeľ pri tejto príležitosti spomínal na reformy či obavy, ktoré predvstupové obdobie prinieslo.
“Rozhodujúcim základom pre našu integráciu do Európskej únie pred 20 rokmi bol silný a kontinuálny zahraničnopolitický konsenzus o tom, že miesto Slovenska v politicky zjednotenej, bezpečnostne stabilnej a ekonomicky vyspelej Európe je naším národno-štátnym záujmom. Na tomto základe vznikali mnohé dôležité rozhodnutia a zbližovanie Slovenska s Európskou úniou a NATO,” uviedol.
Figeľ mal aj obavy o vstup do EÚ
Figeľ poukázal, že počas tzv. mečiarizmu stratilo Slovensko dôveru, dostávalo diplomatické demarše a vypadlo z hlavného integračného prúdu.
“Nástup vlády širokej koalície po parlamentných voľbách v roku 1998 potvrdil schopnosť Slovenska konať zodpovedne a cez potrebné reformy dynamicky prekonávať svoje demokratické deficity a inštitucionálne či legislatívne zaostávanie,” doplnil Figeľ.
Priznáva, že mal aj isté obavy o náš vstup do EÚ. “Obával som sa vnútorných sporov v koalícii, ktoré mohli oslabiť jej stabilitu a výsledky. Náročný bol spor o budúcnosť SDK, teda hlavnej koaličnej strany. Ešte citlivejším bol návrh koaličnej strany SDĽ pod vedením Jozefa Migaša, v tom čase predsedu Národnej rady, na vyslovenie nedôvery premiérovi Mikulášovi Dzurindovi. Našťastie, ustáli sme to,” poznamenal.
Z vonkajších udalostí sa obával tendencie uprednostniť menšiu skupinu krajín pre vstup do Únie. “Bola to aj obava z príliš veľkého jednorazového rozšírenia a následnej zmeny a oslabenia akcieschopnosti Únie. Obmedzené, teda malé rozšírenie EÚ ako preferovaný scenár prevažovalo až do obdobia rokov 2001 – 2002. Tento scenár so Slovenskom nepočítal,” vysvetlil Figeľ.
Bezprecedentný výkon vlády a parlamentu
Slovensko muselo splniť množstvo podmienok a urobiť reformy, aby mohlo do Únie vstúpiť.
“Vláda a parlament podávali za vyše päť rokov bezprecedentný výkon. Z výsledkov a zmien v tomto období Slovensko čerpá a žije dodnes. Od priamej voľby prezidenta, cez verejné obstarávanie, kompatibilitu výrobkov, sektorové reformy, vytvorenie regionálnej samosprávy a decentralizáciu až po prijatie pravidiel pre azyl a migráciu, pre voľný pohyb tovarov, služieb, kapitálu a pracovnej sily,” opísal.
Pre Figeľa to boli najťažšie roky v jeho politickom živote. “Z hľadiska intenzity práce, totálneho diplomatického nasadenia a komunikácie doma i v zahraničí,” doplnil.
Vstupu Slovenska do Únie predchádzalo dosiaľ jediné úspešné referendum. Koaliční aj opoziční politici sa na jeho podporu spoločne prešli po Bratislave, na účasť v referende vyzýval aj Vladimír Mečiar.
“Vedeli sme, že na našej ceste do EÚ bude aj dôležité celoštátne referendum. Nechcel som byť hlavným vyjednávačom v procese, ktorého výsledky odmietnu ľudia v referende, ako sa to stalo v Nórsku,” uviedol pre TASR Figeľ.
Najkonsenzuálnejší cieľ politiky
Integrácia bola podľa jeho slov kombináciou zodpovedného politického a odborného konania.
“Aj preto sa slovenská podpora pre členstvo dlhodobo pohybovala na úrovni 60 – 70 percent. Úspešná cesta do EÚ bola najkonsenzuálnejším cieľom našej politiky za celé desaťročie od vzniku samostatnej Slovenskej republiky. Podporovali ho parlamentné politické strany, profesijné združenia a komory, odbory, samosprávy, univerzity, cirkvi, mimovládne organizácie a médiá,” pripomenul.
Slovenskú stratégiu vyjednávaní označil za ambicióznu, konštruktívnu a realistickú. “Aj preto bola úspešná,” podotkol a pripomenul, že prístupová zmluva bola podpisovaná pod Akropolou v Aténach 16. apríla 2003 za gréckeho predsedníctva Rady EÚ.
“Za Slovensko sú pod zmluvou podpisy prezidenta Rudolfa Schustera, premiéra Mikuláša Dzurindu, ministra zahraničných vecí Eduarda Kukana a môj ako hlavného vyjednávača. Bola to udalosť historického významu. Pero, ktorým som zmluvu podpísal, mi grécky protokol daroval. Mám ho odložené ako vzácnu spomienku,” zaspomínal si Figeľ.
Slovenský integračný príbeh bol úspešný, zaujímavý a zostáva inšpirujúcim pre mnohých doma i v zahraničí. Pre TASR to uviedol Ján Figeľ, ktorý bol hlavným vyjednávačom vstupu Slovenska do Európskej únie aj prvým slovenským eurokomisárom. Slovensko si 1. mája pripomína 20 rokov od vstupu do Únie. Figeľ pri tejto príležitosti spomínal na reformy či obavy, ktoré predvstupové obdobie prinieslo.
“Rozhodujúcim základom pre našu integráciu do Európskej únie (EÚ) pred 20 rokmi bol silný a kontinuálny zahraničnopolitický konsenzus o tom, že miesto Slovenska v politicky zjednotenej, bezpečnostne stabilnej a ekonomicky vyspelej Európe je naším národno-štátnym záujmom. Na tomto základe vznikali mnohé dôležité rozhodnutia a zbližovanie Slovenska s Európskou úniou a NATO,” uviedol.
Poukázal, že počas tzv. mečiarizmu stratilo Slovensko dôveru, dostávalo diplomatické demarše a vypadlo z hlavného integračného prúdu. “Nástup vlády širokej koalície po parlamentných voľbách v roku 1998 potvrdil schopnosť Slovenska konať zodpovedne a cez potrebné reformy dynamicky prekonávať svoje demokratické deficity a inštitucionálne či legislatívne zaostávanie,” doplnil Figeľ.
Priznáva, že mal aj isté obavy o náš vstup do EÚ. “Obával som sa vnútorných sporov v koalícii, ktoré mohli oslabiť jej stabilitu a výsledky. Náročný bol spor o budúcnosť SDK, teda hlavnej koaličnej strany. Ešte citlivejším bol návrh koaličnej strany SDĽ pod vedením Jozefa Migaša, v tom čase predsedu NR SR, na vyslovenie nedôvery premiérovi Mikulášovi Dzurindovi. Našťastie, ustáli sme to,” poznamenal.
Z vonkajších udalostí sa obával tendencie uprednostniť menšiu skupinu krajín pre vstup do Únie. “Bola to aj obava z príliš veľkého jednorazového rozšírenia a následnej zmeny a oslabenia akcieschopnosti Únie. Obmedzené, teda malé rozšírenie EÚ ako preferovaný scenár prevažovalo až do obdobia rokov 2001 – 2002. Tento scenár so Slovenskom nepočítal,” vysvetlil Figeľ.
Slovensko muselo splniť množstvo podmienok a urobiť reformy, aby mohlo do Únie vstúpiť. “Vláda a parlament podávali za vyše päť rokov bezprecedentný výkon. Z výsledkov a zmien v tomto období Slovensko čerpá a žije dodnes. Od priamej voľby prezidenta, cez verejné obstarávanie, kompatibilitu výrobkov, sektorové reformy, vytvorenie regionálnej samosprávy a decentralizáciu až po prijatie pravidiel pre azyl a migráciu, pre voľný pohyb tovarov, služieb, kapitálu a pracovnej sily,” opísal Figeľ, pre ktorého to boli najťažšie roky v jeho politickom živote. “Z hľadiska intenzity práce, totálneho diplomatického nasadenia a komunikácie doma i v zahraničí,” doplnil.
Vstupu Slovenska do Únie predchádzalo dosiaľ jediné úspešné referendum. Koaliční aj opoziční politici sa na jeho podporu spoločne prešli po Bratislave, na účasť v referende vyzýval aj Vladimír Mečiar. “Vedeli sme, že na našej ceste do EÚ bude aj dôležité celoštátne referendum. Nechcel som byť hlavným vyjednávačom v procese, ktorého výsledky odmietnu ľudia v referende, ako sa to stalo v Nórsku,” uviedol pre TASR Figeľ. Integrácia bola podľa jeho slov kombináciou zodpovedného politického a odborného konania. “Aj preto sa slovenská podpora pre členstvo dlhodobo pohybovala na úrovni 60 – 70 percent. Úspešná cesta do EÚ bola najkonsenzuálnejším cieľom našej politiky za celé desaťročie od vzniku samostatnej Slovenskej republiky. Podporovali ho parlamentné politické strany, profesijné združenia a komory, odbory, samosprávy, univerzity, cirkvi, mimovládne organizácie a médiá,” pripomenul.
Slovenskú stratégiu vyjednávaní označil za ambicióznu, konštruktívnu a realistickú. “Aj preto bola úspešná,” podotkol a pripomenul, že prístupová zmluva bola podpisovaná pod Akropolou v Aténach 16. apríla 2003 za gréckeho predsedníctva Rady EÚ. “Za Slovensko sú pod zmluvou podpisy prezidenta Rudolfa Schustera, premiéra Mikuláša Dzurindu, ministra zahraničných vecí Eduarda Kukana a môj ako hlavného vyjednávača. Bola to udalosť historického významu. Pero, ktorým som zmluvu podpísal, mi grécky protokol daroval. Mám ho odložené ako vzácnu spomienku,” zaspomínal si Figeľ.
Od vstupu Slovenska do Európskej únie uplynie v stredu 20 rokov. Kam sa naša republika posunula, a kam sa posunula Únia? V Pozrime sa na to boli hosťami poslanec NR SR a diplomat Tomáš Valášek (PS), poslankyňa Európskeho parlamentu Katarína Roth Neveďalová (Smer-SD), hlavný vyjednávač pre vstup do EÚ a prvý člen Európskej komisie za Slovensko Ján Figeľ a analytička Euractiv Barbara Zmušková.
Konsenzus o EÚ
Vstup do Únie bol podľa Jána Figeľa jeden z najkonsenzuálnejších bodov pre občanov, a to sa potvrdilo aj v referende o vstupe do Európskej únie. Podpora bola na úrovni 60-70 percent. Všetky politické strany boli pred referendom za vstup Slovenska do Únie. Je presvedčený, že aj súčasné strany by mali nájsť zhodu v základných a strategických témach.
Tomáš Valášek súhlasil, že politický konsenzus bol vtedy väčší, ako dnes. Pre Slovensko bolo podľa neho lepšie, keď sme sa vedeli zhodnúť v základných veciach, ako napríklad, že do Únie a Aliancie patríme a spojencov potrebujeme. Mrzí ho “koketovanie” niektorých strán s vystúpením z EÚ a NATO, či útočenie na európskych komisárov.
Iná Únia
Katarína Roth Neveďalová si myslí, že Európska únia je úspešný projekt, ale je to iná Únia, ako do ktorej sme vstupovali. Kým na začiatku to bolo hlavne o ekonomickej spolupráci, Schengene, cestovaní či študovaní v zahraničí, dnes je to podľa Neveďalovej o témách, ktoré môžu ľuďom prekážať, ako príklad uviedla Green Deal. Únia podľa nej “málo informuje a rýchlo koná“. Myslí si, že by sme mali spomaliť.
Na začiatku boli viac vnímané výhody, tvrdí analytička Euractiv Barbara Zmušková. Súhlasí s Neveďalovou, že je to iná Európa ako pred dvadsiatimi rokmi. “Keď sme vstupovali, tak sme si nevedeli predstaviť, že Európska únia bude musieť dozerať, aby bola sloboda médií v členskom štáte,” povedala Zmušková. Rátalo sa s tým, že keď budeme spolu obchodovať, demokraciu to posilní a budeme dodržiavať základné hodnoty. Pri krajinách ako Maďarsko, Poľsko, a teraz už aj Slovensko, sa podľa nej ukázalo, že to také jednoduché nie je.
Odpoveďou sú nové technológie
Figeľ sa vyjadril, že by sme sa nemali vracať “k abecede demokracie”, či je právny štát potrebný, či je cieľom politiky aj spravodlivosť, nielen slušnosť, lebo ako uviedol, “len slušnosť je málo“.
“Pre ekonomické, finančné, ekologické problémy nie sú odpoveďou nové ideológie, ale nové technológie,” povedal Figeľ. Vidí nárast v EÚ nárast ideológií namiesto praktickej solidarity, ktorá bola na začiatkoch európskej integrácie. Spomenul, že v súčasnom europarlamente sú najväčšie korupčné škandály v histórii projektu.
Top EU official and former Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief, Dr. Ján Figeľ, challenges 2021 COVID restrictions on public worship at the European Court of Human Rights
Worship bans are “illiberal and non-democratic,” states Figeľ, who is bringing the potentially precedent-setting religious freedom case co-represented by ADF International
Strasbourg (28 July 2023) – Are blanket bans on public worship compatible with the international human right to the communal exercise of religious freedom? This is the question brought by former EU Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief, Dr. Ján Figeľ, who has filed a challenge at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on the 2021 COVID restrictions on public worship. Figeľ, co-represented by human rights organisation ADF International and local Slovak lawyer Martin Timcsak, now submitted his arguments to the court.
“Religious freedom as a basic human right deserves the highest level of protection. Prohibiting people from worship and communal religious exercise is profoundly illiberal and illegitimate. Worship bans were unfair and disproportionate. Our arguments submitted to the Court demonstrate clearly that blanket bans are violations of religious freedom under international human rights law,” stated Dr. Ján Figeľ.
Figeľ’s case might be the first where Europe’s top human rights court rules on the blanket bans on public worship during the Covid pandemic. The decision would set a precedent for 46 European States with 676 million citizens.
“In times of crisis, fundamental freedoms need to be protected, rather than weakened.”
In 2021 the Slovak Republic prolonged its COVID restrictions, banning religious services. Dr. Ján Figeľ and ADF International lead lawyer Dr. Adina Portaru argue that the restrictions violated both national and international law.
“We are committed to supporting Dr. Ján Figeľ and his defence of religious freedom. The international legal framework is very clear in its protection of this right as it benefits everyone – people of faith as well as people of no faith. Fundamental freedoms apply to all, and in times of crisis they must be protected rather than weakened,” said Dr. Adina Portaru, Senior Counsel for ADF International.
The Slovak government also put forward the option of digital worship as a justification for the blanket ban. Recent court rulings throughout Europe, however, arrive at different conclusions. Scotland’s highest civil court ruled on the same issue, holding that digital options “are best viewed as an alternative to worship, rather than worship itself”.
Restrictions were not “proportional, appropriate, and necessary”
The case rests on the fact that the Slovak blanket ban was neither proportional, nor appropriate or necessary.
“Nobody should be prohibited from peacefully exercising his or her convictions, and it was evident that religious worship could be conducted safely during the pandemic. Blanket bans ignore the central role that religion plays in the lives of believers. For people of faith, communal worship, spiritual nourishment, can be as important as bodily nourishment. That’s why international and European law and our very own Constitution holds religious freedom so dearly. I expect that the ECtHR will consider this holistically with a keen eye for the role of human rights in a democratic society,” said Dr. Ján Figeľ upon submitting the arguments.
Former Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion now defends human rights at home
Ján Figeľ served as European Commissioner in various positions between 2004 and 2009. In 2016 he was appointed as Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief outside the EU, a position he held until 2019.
“As Special Envoy, it was evident to me that the EU cannot credibly advance religious freedom throughout the world if its Member States fail to uphold fundamental freedoms at home,” Figeľ added.
A newly released video features Dr. Ján Figeľ and ADF International lead lawyer Dr. Adina Portaru in Bratislava/Slovakia.
ADF International has been involved worldwide in cases regarding worship bans and violations of religious freedom in the context of Covid restrictions. In Uganda, the organisation supported a coalition of Christians and Muslims challenging a discriminatory prohibition of religious gatherings. Further, ADF International advocated to open churches for worship in Ireland, Scotland, and Switzerland.
HJ International Graduate School for Peace and Public Leadership (former UTS) held its forty-seventh Commencement in New York City. Ján Figeľ has received a Dr. h. c. Award and delivered a speech to the faculty and graduates.
In 2016, I became the first-ever Special Envoy for the Promotion of Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) outside the European Union. It was a time of mass atrocities committed by terrorists and militants of so-called ISIS against religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq and Syria, and for four demanding years, I visited many countries to promote interfaith dialogue and responsibility. The most satisfying reward of that time was seeing the liberation of several prisoners of conscience in Sudan and Pakistan.
I have seen a lot of human suffering but also unbeatable courage and hope.
Since 2016, many European States followed my pioneering role by nominating their special envoys, ambassadors and plenipotentiaries. Thus, the FoRB protection has become a visible and vital part of European and international cooperation.
If the majority of people come to care about peace, we may indeed see a more humane, more peaceful 21st century. But what is the reality of religious freedom in the 21st century?
The Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C., reports that 84% of the global population claims some form of religious affiliation. However, 79% of the global population lives in countries with high or very high obstacles to religious freedom. In short, hundreds of millions of people do not enjoy full religious freedom.
We can see this in government oppression, social hostilities, violent extremism and terrorism. Examples? Christians in Nigeria, Uyghurs in China, Rohingyas in Myanmar. Religious freedom is under growing pressure even in some democratic countries: In Japan, the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification is facing painful times.
Religious freedom can be restricted due to necessary public interest, but only in line with three conditions: Legality, legitimacy, proportionality. (For instance, was it right or wrong for governments to put extensive restrictions on communal worship services during COVID-19 pandemics?) Vigilance is crucial for rule of law and for religious freedom to be duly respected in free and democratic countries.
I wish to share three important messages.
The right to religious freedom is the basis for other rights
International law defines FoRB as a freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It is a very central human right – defining issues of personal conviction, lifestyle, the basis of cultural and spiritual life, identity, and the principle of belonging to the community of the like-minded.
FoRB is also a very complex right, as it concerns teaching, practice, worship and observance, in private or in public life, alone or in a community, for believers and non-believers. Therefore, one can say FoRB is a litmus test of all human rights.
FoRB represents the triune dimension of the human person: Homo rationalis, h. moralis, h. religiosus. Our rationality, morality, religiosity are inseparable.
Religious freedom requires maturity and responsibility
Freedom is a beautiful but fragile, vulnerable child. She needs to stay close to her wise and brave mother called, Truth. Freedom without truth will die, and will cease to exist. Crisis can be interpreted as a lack of maturity and an absence of balance. There are two sides of each valid coin: Freedom and responsibility, rights and duties.
Whenever I met religious leaders—the grand imams, grand ayatollahs, the Roman Catholic pope, the Coptic pope, the Tibetan dalai lama, and chief rabbis, patriarchs and bishops—I always spoke about religious social responsibility. The integration of Central European nations into the EU and NATO, into Euro Atlantic community of democracies was a result of responsible freedom.
Religious freedom is inextricable from human dignity
If there is a meeting point between the religious and secular worlds, it is human dignity. For true peace, we must dig deeper: We are all different in identity, but we are equal in dignity.
To me, the culture of human dignity operates on two very ancient ethical principles: The silver one stresses equality, respect and tolerance. It says: “Don’t do onto others what you don’t want others to do onto you.”
The golden ethical principle stresses solidarity and reciprocity of justice and common good. It says: “Do unto others what you want others to do unto you.”
Upholding human dignity is so essential that in 2018, international scholars, religious and political leaders adopted the Punta del Este Declaration on Human Dignity for Everyone Everywhere. This living document is open to signatories from all over the world (www.dignityforeveryone.org).
Evil remains widespread because it has strong allies: Indifference, ignorance and fear. If we don’t care, if we don’t know, if we are scared to say or do something on behalf of the voiceless or the defenseless, evil flourishes.
Let us nurture allies of common good: Education, active engagement, and courage. We can strengthen a growing global religious freedom movement, such as the International Religious Freedom Roundtables, International Religious Freedom Summit, G20 Interfaith Forum, and the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance.
Jan Figel, who lived half his life under a communist regime, became the chief negotiator for Slovakia to enter the European Union and became its first EU Commissioner.
Almost nine years ago, newly appointed EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini was being lauded for leading the world in standing up to the junta who usurped power away from the elected government in Thailand four months prior. Alongside the accolades came a foreboding warning: Once the military has its grip on power, it will not easily let it go. Specifically, it was suggested that the military will rewrite the constitution in such a way that its own grip on power will be built into the system in perpetuity.
As expected, the new constitution was promulgated in 2017, cementing the military’s powers. Much delayed elections were finally held in 2019, seeing the junta leader shed his uniform for a suit and tie to transition into Thailand’s new ‘civilian’ PM. Unfortunately, in the nine years which have transpired, the EU and much of the Western world have dropped sanctions and abandoned principle, returning to full cooperation with Thailand’s undemocratic government, choosing to take part in the charade rather than stand up for democracy.
In May of this year, a second election was held under the new constitution. This time, nine years after the coup d’Etat which swept the military into power, a landslide victory for pro-democracy parties Move Forward and Pheu Thai and a complete sidelining of the plain-clothed military political parties. Yet, as Nikkei Asia reports, three weeks after the elections, the pro-democracy coalition’s nominated PM is still in limbo while the powers that be deliberate whether to allow him to assume his rightful office.
In contrast, earlier this year the EU adopted further restrictive measures against leaders of the junta which usurped power in Thailand’s immediate neighbour to the West, Myanmar, in February 2021. One can only hope that the EU will not buckle in Myanmar as it has in Thailand and stay steadfast in its resolve to support the Burmese people in their aspiration for a fully democratic transition.
All eyes must now turn one more country to the West, with general elections scheduled in Bangladesh for January 2024. Following a highly criticized and disputed general election in 2018, Bangladesh’s main opposition party, Bangladesh National Party (BNP) and Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami both demand the next elections be held under a caretaker government, at the threat of boycott. Veteran Bangladeshi PM of 15 years Sheikh Hasina has vowed never again to hand over power to an unelected body and has rejected this demand outright.
The last caretaker government was taken over by the military, extended its 90-day term and postponed elections by over two years from 2006-2008. Ironically, in full role-reversal, it was then-opposition Awami League (today’s ruling party)’s boycott of the 2006 elections which triggered the declaration of the State of Emergency and military intervention. Political leaders of all parties from across the political spectrum were jailed and indicted on various trumped-up charges by the caretaker government – a common practice by juntas designed to exclude popular political leaders from ever contesting future elections. In fact, both of BNP’s current co-leaders, Khaleda Zia and her son Tarique Rahman, are ineligible to run in the upcoming elections due to convictions which date back to the military-backed caretaker government of 2006-2008. Incumbent Sheikh Hasina too had been jailed during this period – which may play a major factor in her outright rejection of the opposition’s demands.
The caretaker government was a unique arrangement which does not exist anywhere else in the world, and in 2011 Bangladesh’s Supreme Court ruled that the system of interim administrations was unconstitutional. The Awami League government has reasoned that in the previous elections, a caretaker government was needed because the Election Commission (EC) never had a legal basis in Bangladesh. But in January 2022, the country passed a new law promulgating the formation of the EC.
In response to pressure from the US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken in June 2023, PM Sheikh Hasina has committed to hold free & fair elections and has welcomed international observers to monitor elections. Recent local elections in the strategic city of Gazipur in June 2023 were held peacefully and without incident, despite an independent candidate defeating the ruling party’s candidate by a narrow margin. BNP did not contest these elections – a possible harbinger of things to come. With both sides at an impasse and a likely boycott of elections by opposition, the stage is set for yet another military intervention in the region. The military seems to be chomping at the bit with anticipation. If they are to be deterred, the international community must make it clear to the generals that the consequences will be swift, harsh and personal.
