Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Currently, the debate over whether the State’s relationship with religion should be regulated by common law or special law is being reconsidered in somewhat different terms. On the one hand, regardless of the State–religion relationship models divided into virtually watertight categories. On the other hand, this shift is driven by two key elements that blur the boundaries of the debate. Firstly, by the recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which gives greater relevance to the principle of cooperation. This cooperation must be understood in light of the State’s duty of neutrality and the effective application of the principle of equality and non-discrimination of religious groups. Secondly, by the importance the European Union attaches to establishing an open, transparent, and regular dialogue with religious and philosophical organizations. In any case, the fact that cooperation is gaining relevance as a principle that must guide the actions of public authorities at the national level necessitates an analysis of the most adequate strategies to understand how these relations are implemented and evaluate the concrete consequences on the guarantee and effective exercise of religious and ideological freedom.
Silvia Meseguer-Velasco (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: