Brussels — Concerns are rising in Brussels regarding the actions of Vincent Depaigne, the European Commission’s Coordinator for dialogue with churches, religious associations, and non-confessional organisations under Article 17 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU). Several stakeholders claim ongoing arbitrary access control, subjective exclusions, and lack of impartiality in a process meant to be open and transparent.
For more on Article 17 dialogue, see our analysis: EU Dialogue and Religious Freedom.
A Treaty-Mandated Dialogue Allegedly Shaped by Personal Discretion
Article 17 TFEU mandates the EU institutions to keep an “open, transparent and regular dialogue” with churches and philosophical organisations. However, numerous eligible groups have reportedly been unable to secure even an initial meeting with Mr. Depaigne, some waiting since 2017.
Testimonies suggest the Coordinator informally conveyed: “I can receive whoever I want. There are no rules. There are no punishments.” In another case, he allegedly excluded a group due to “issues in a Member State” — a criterion not found in EU law.
Experts caution that such statements indicate a shift from institutional impartiality to personal gatekeeping.
Impartiality and Non-Discrimination: A Legal Obligation
The requirement for neutrality and equal treatment in EU administration is well established. As Humanists International – Europe states:
“The neutrality of the Union’s institutions in relation to religious or philosophical convictions is the only guarantee of religious freedom and freedom of thought.”
Selective or inconsistent access to Treaty-mandated dialogue could therefore breach impartiality, non-discrimination, and the duty of neutrality binding all EU officials.
Transparency vs. Discretion: A Risk of Discriminatory Outcomes
Scholars have long highlighted that excessive administrative discretion risks inequality. Professor Kim Lane Scheppele of Princeton University emphasized that: “Transparency dispels the fear that discretion easily turns into discrimination” (Oxford University Press). Yet many organizations report a “closed door” approach, lacking clear access criteria or transparent explanations for refusals.
In the European Journal of Risk Regulation, researcher Andrea Volpato further warns: “Opening up closed decision-making arenas allows public control over the exercise of public power, enabling the public to detect arbitrary decisions and hold to account decision-makers.” When dialogue access becomes opaque, the risk of arbitrary or discriminatory outcomes rises significantly.
Good Administration Requires More Than Legal Minimalism
The European Ombudsman has consistently stressed that EU institutions must exceed basic legality: “European institutions must respect the rule of law… However, good administration requires more of the institutions than merely avoiding unlawful behaviour” (European Ombudsman). This principle is crucial when groups have pursued dialogue for years without success, yet no formal reason for exclusion is given.
Redirection to Non-Competent Services
Some organizations report being redirected to the European External Action Service (EEAS) when requesting to meet Mr. Depaigne — an institution with no mandate over Article 17 TFEU, which deals with internal dialogue, not foreign policy. Experts in administrative law argue that directing citizens to a non-competent service contr
Leave a Reply