Brussels — Serious concerns are emerging in Brussels about the conduct 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). Multiple stakeholders allege years of arbitrary access control, subjective exclusions and lack of impartiality in a Treaty-mandated process intended to remain open and transparent.
For background on Article 17 dialogue, see our analysis: EU Dialogue and Religious Freedom.
A Treaty-Mandated Dialogue Allegedly Shaped by Personal Discretion
Article 17 TFEU requires the EU institutions to maintain an “open, transparent and regular dialogue” with churches and philosophical organisations. However, several eligible groups report that they have been unable to obtain even an introductory meeting with Mr. Depaigne, some waiting since 2017.
According to testimonies, the Coordinator reportedly stated informally: “I can receive whoever I want. There are no rules. There are no punishments.” In another instance, he allegedly justified excluding a group because they had “issues in a Member State” — a criterion nowhere found in EU law.
Experts warn that such remarks suggest a shift from institutional impartiality to personal gatekeeping.
Impartiality and Non-Discrimination: A Legal Obligation
The need for neutrality and equal treatment in EU administration is well documented. As Humanists International – Europe notes:
“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 may therefore constitute a breach of impartiality, non-discrimination, and the duty of neutrality binding all EU officials.
Transparency vs. Discretion: A Risk of Discriminatory Outcomes
Scholars have long warned that excessive administrative discretion invites accusations of inequality. Professor Kim Lane Scheppele of Princeton University stressed that: “Transparency dispels the fear that discretion easily turns into discrimination” ( Oxford University Press). Yet several organisations describe a “closed door” approach, lacking clear criteria for access or transparent explanation of 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.” Where access to dialogue becomes opaque, the risk of arbitrary or discriminatory outcomes increases substantially.
Good Administration Requires More Than Legal Minimalism
The European Ombudsman has repeatedly emphasised that EU institutions must go beyond 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 particularly relevant where groups have sought dialogue for years without success, yet no formal reason is provided for the exclusion.
Redirection to Non-Competent Services
Some organisations report that requests to meet Mr. Depaigne were redirected to the European External Action Service (EEAS) — an institution with no mandate over Article 17 TFEU, which governs internal dialogue, not foreign policy. According to administrative law specialists, sending citizens to a non-competent service contradicts the Commission’s duty to guide enquiries correctly and ensure equal access.
Structural and Reputational Risks for the Commission
If access to Article 17 dialogue is effectively dependent on the personal preferences of a single official, critics warn this may expose the Commission to:
- findings of maladministration
- complaints of unequal treatment
- claims of reputational inconsistency with EU values
- scrutiny from the European Ombudsman or DG HR Disciplinary Board
As academic Odile Ammann notes in European Papers: “A narrow focus on transparency is misguided and neglects other fundamental democratic values, such as equality.” This warning resonates strongly with the allegations now emerging around the management of the Article 17 dialogue.
A Call for Oversight and Clarity
At its core, Article 17 is not symbolic. It is a Treaty obligation. Rights conferred by the Treaties cannot hinge on personal discretion, national controversies, or informal preferences.
With pressure mounting, civil society actors and legal observers are now calling for greater oversight, clearer criteria, and institutional safeguards that ensure every eligible organisation is treated fairly, impartially and transparently.
Whether the Commission will respond with structural reforms or a formal review of practices remains to be seen. But the questions raised strike at the heart of the EU’s commitment to equality, neutrality and respect for fundamental rights.
We acknowledge The European Times for the information.
