ADF International Belgium
ADFI
ADF International is a faith-based legal advocacy organisation that protects fundamental freedoms and promotes the inherent dignity of all people.
ID: 69403354038-78
Lobbying Activity
Meeting with Stephen Nikola Bartulica (Member of the European Parliament)
4 Jun 2025 · Free Speech
Response to European Democracy Shield
26 May 2025
ADF International is a faith-based legal advocacy organisation that protects fundamental freedoms and promotes the inherent dignity of all people. This contribution focuses on the impact that the European Democracy Shield (EDS) and the Digital Services Act (DSA), which is complementary to the EDS, might have on freedom of expression. It highlights common pitfalls and challenges and puts forward two concrete recommendations.
Read full responseMeeting with Bert-Jan Ruissen (Member of the European Parliament)
25 Mar 2025 · human dignity
Meeting with Tomislav Sokol (Member of the European Parliament)
20 Mar 2025 · Freedom of expression, conscience, religion and belief
Meeting with Bert-Jan Ruissen (Member of the European Parliament)
4 Mar 2025 · human dignity
Meeting with Georgiana Teodorescu (Member of the European Parliament)
4 Mar 2025 · General Interest
Meeting with Piotr Müller (Member of the European Parliament)
24 Feb 2025 · Protection of freedom of speech - national and international regulation in the digital space
Meeting with Bert-Jan Ruissen (Member of the European Parliament)
14 Jan 2025 · human dignity
Meeting with Miriam Lexmann (Member of the European Parliament)
10 Sept 2024 · Freedom of Religion and Belief
Meeting with Bert-Jan Ruissen (Member of the European Parliament)
10 Jul 2024 · Freedom of religion
Meeting with Bert-Jan Ruissen (Member of the European Parliament)
9 Jul 2024 · Freedom of religion
Meeting with Robert Roos (Member of the European Parliament)
3 Apr 2024 · Pandemic Treaty
Meeting with Bert-Jan Ruissen (Member of the European Parliament)
5 Dec 2023 · Human Dignity
Response to Recognition of parenthood
10 Feb 2023
ADF International is a faith-based legal advocacy organization that protects fundamental freedoms and promotes the inherent dignity of all people. We submit that the EC should abandon the current Regulation for the reasons below. a) The EUs limited competence EU Member States differ in the way they regulate marriage, family & parenthood due to deeply rooted social, cultural & political variations accurately reflecting the European motto: united in diversity. Although the Regulation maintains that there will be no interference with national law, the practical reality of this is not shown. Imposing the recognition of parenthood established abroad in contradiction to the national laws of the host State would create a conflict of norms. Two definitions of family and parenthood will be effective in one Member State, leading to normative chaos & an ongoing erosion of Member States competence. Regulations related to filiation, employment conditions, taxes, parental leave, as well as the legal certainty & predictability of the content of rights & obligations would be impacted leading to a harmonization of an area of law which is in the competence of Member States. During periods of economic & political insecurity, the EC could, by way of this initiative, further exacerbate the division of the Union if it decides to redefine family & parenthood for all Member States. The EC should not sacrifice respect for national competence & cultural diversity by telling Member States that their national legal order is irrelevant. b) The human dignity of the child threatened by advancing surrogacy The Regulation includes the child not yet born irrespective of how the child was conceived (potentially including surrogacy agreements) (Art. 4, p. 13). If, for example, the Netherlands recognizes parenthood emanating from a surrogacy agreement established in Ukraine, such parenthood will be recognized throughout the EU. Therefore, all kinds of surrogacy will be allowed even in direct contradiction to the laws of some EU Member States. This is not in the best interest of the child. Multiple cases have emerged of babies abandoned by commissioning parties when they did not meet the expectations of those parties. The payment for a child as a commodity jeopardizes the intrinsic human dignity and fundamental rights of the child a violation of Convention on the Rights of the Child. c) The opportunity for forum shopping The Regulation provides a total of six alternative criteria for identifying the competent court with jurisdiction (ch II). If none of the six options recognize same-sex unions in their national laws, the EU citizen who wants to eschew laws, can do forum shopping. d) Instruments with no binding effect and universal application One of the stated aims of the Regulation is the recognition of authentic instruments establishing parenthood with no binding legal effect, in the Member State of origin, but which have evidentiary effects (pp. 3-4) Chapter III states that the law designated as applicable by the proposal has a universal characterit applies whether it is the law of a Member State or the law of a third State. It is not clear what European public act will be non-binding. This, read with Chapter III, potentially allows for the usage of non-EU (non-binding) public acts as evidentiary material in the EU to establish parental ties. e) Submission We respectfully submit that the EC should not go forward with the current Regulation in its present form as it: - Leads to the harmonization of national law - national competence should prevail. - Leads to the justification of all kinds of surrogacy, in direct contradiction to the laws of some EU Member States. This is not in the best interest of the child & contrary to the childs human dignity. - Creates the potential opportunity for forum shopping. - Potentially allows for the usage of non-EU public acts as evidentiary material in the EU to establish parental ties.
Read full responseResponse to Recognition of parenthood
7 May 2021
ADF International is a faith-based legal advocacy organization that protects fundamental freedoms and promotes the inherent dignity of all people.
We respectfully submit that the European Commission’s (EC) initiative to recognize cross-border parenthood should be analysed with caution, due to several factors:
a) The EU’s limited competence in the field of family matters.
As correctly mentioned in the EC inception impact assessment, under the Union Treaties, substantive law on family matters and the legal status of persons falls within the competence of Member States, which means that the establishment of the parenthood of a person is governed by national law. Member States’ substantive rules on the establishment of parenthood differ. The differences in regulating marriage, family, and parenthood, as well as the procedures related to them are deeply rooted in the social, cultural, and political specificities of EU Member States. They also accurately reflect the European moto: united in diversity. Therefore, the current initiative should not go against the well-established competence of Member States in the area of marriage, family and parenthood.
b) The interdiction on the EU to harmonise the area of marriage, family and parenthood.
Given that the EU does not have competence in the area of marriage, family and parenthood, and due to the principle of subsidiarity, the EU cannot advance rules that will lead to a de facto harmonisation in an area for which it is lacking competence.
c) Free movement cannot be used as a tool to eschew national competence in the area of marriage, family and parenthood.
To prevent conflict of norms and an erosion of the national competence of host Member States, it is not sufficient that the parenthood is valid in the Member State of origin, it must also already be part of the law in the host State.
Otherwise, elements that are foreign to the domestic legal system can be imported, eschewing democratic processes and creating tensions between different jurisdictions.
If Member States are forced to recognize parenthood established abroad, in contradiction to their national rules, they cannot possibly maintain their own legal orders on the issue of marriage, family and parenthood. One main implication is that the domestic definitions of parenthood would become all but meaningless.
For example, many Member States have a prohibition on surrogacy and various national procedures that can legitimately vary (as recognized by the European Court of Human Rights in its first advisory opinion) for dealing with that situation. Therefore, imposing the recognition of parenthood established abroad (either by surrogacy, adoption or medically assisted reproduction) in contradiction to the national laws of the host State would create a grave conflict of norms. There would be at least two definitions of family and parenthood effective in one Member State, which would lead to a normative chaos, and an ongoing erosion of Member States’ competence on related matters.
Regulations related to filiation and blood line would be impacted. Employment conditions, taxes, maternity leave, and paternity leave would need to be reconsidered. The Civil Code may need to be rewritten. Legal certainty, and predictability on the content of rights and obligations would be negatively impacted, leading ultimately to a harmonisation of an area which is in the competence of Member States.
In times where the world is facing a global health crisis and is drifting apart, the EC could further exacerbate the division of the Union if it decides to redefine marriage, family and parenthood for all Member States. The EC should not sacrifice respect for national competence and cultural diversity by telling Member States that their national legal order is irrelevant.
Read full responseMeeting with Carlo Fidanza (Member of the European Parliament)
21 Apr 2021 · Christians minorities
Response to Extension of the list of EU crimes to hate speech and hate crime
19 Apr 2021
ADF International is a faith-based legal advocacy organization that protects fundamental freedoms and promotes the inherent dignity of all people. We act before national and international institutions and have ECOSOC consultative status with the United Nations (registered name ‘Alliance Defending Freedom’), accreditation with the Organization of American States, and are registered with the EU Transparency Register. ADF International is also a participant in the FRA Fundamental Rights Platform.
ADF International submits that the European Commission should abandon the initiative to extend the list of EU crimes in Article 83(1) of the TFEU to hate speech and hate crimes.
When Members States have attempted to introduce similar laws, civil society groups and human rights campaigners have raised considerable concerns. Laws have lacked robust definitions; been difficult to prosecute; and have been dealt with within the remit of lower courts. Hate speech and hate crimes also do not meet the criteria listed in Article 83(1) of the TFEU in order to be elevated to the level of EU crimes.
Please find our contribution attached.
Read full responseResponse to Delivering for children: an EU strategy on the rights of the child
4 Aug 2020
The EU should stress the need for the application of the best interests of the child standard in a way which respects parental rights. Although the assessment of such a standard lies at domestic level, the EU should reinforce that it is almost always in ‘the best interest of the child’ to be raised by his or her parents. Recent years have seen a number of high profile cases in the media, and before the Courts, where a child removal within a European country has been found unlawful. The removal of a child is only justified under well-evidenced circumstances demonstrating a real risk of serious harm and subject to sufficient judicial review at all stages while maintaining the objective of family reunification. Parents have a right and a duty to raise their children, look after their well-being, and enable them to thrive. There should be a presumption in favour of parents that they act in the best interests of their children, which can only be displaced by evidence demonstrating a concrete risk of serious harm. Children are born to parents not to the government and thus States cannot and must not take on the role of parents.
Whilst reinforcing the standard concerning the best interests of the child, the EU should be vigilant with respect to the increasing evidence of overreach of Scandinavian social services regarding the removal of children from their families (PACE Resolution 14568 (2018)). The European Commission should send a clear message that ‘removing children from their parents should be done only as a last resort and for a very short period’ (CoE Commissioner for Human Rights Nils Muižnieks in the presentation of his Annual Activity Report 2016).
The new Strategy should include and specify in clear terms that Regulation 2016/1191 of the EP and of the Council on promoting the free movement of citizens by simplifying the requirements for presenting certain public documents in the EU and amending Regulation should apply only with regard to the authenticity of the public documents in the cross-border situation, and not to the recognition in another Member State of their content or effects. In this regard, the recognition of the content and effects of public documents falls within national law of the respective Member State where recognition is sought.
Furthermore, the EU should stand firmly against pervasive sex-selection practices. ‘Since in all societies discrimination on the basis of sex often starts at the earliest stages of life, greater equality for the girl child is a necessary first step’ (ICPD 4.15, 4.16, 4.23, 28). Therefore, the EEAS and the relevant country desks should raise awareness and take a critical stand of the prenatal sex-selection which is pervasive even in economically strong third countries. For example, in China and in India, three baby girls are aborted every minute just because they are girls, and everywhere in the world ‘women are missing in their millions – aborted, killed, neglected to death’ (The Worldwide War on Baby Girls, The Economist). The United Nations Population Fund estimates that ‘around 140 million women are believed to be “missing” around the world – the result of son preference, including gender-biased sex selection, a form of discrimination’ (Gender-biased sex selection, United Nations Population Fund). This is an alarming situation which stands in stark opposition with the values promoted by the EU, and should be firmly opposed during negotiations and consultations carried out by country desks and the EEAS, the EU SR for Human Rights, and in delegations of the EP, through statements and demarches. This should be done in order to encourage Governments to develop ‘programmes and policies that foster norms and attitudes of zero tolerance for harmful and discriminatory practices such as prenatal sex selection' (ICPD 48).
Read full responseMeeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans)
7 Nov 2017 · discussion on the Equal Treatment
Meeting with Bernd Martenczuk (Cabinet of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans)
19 Oct 2016 · Code of conduct against hate speech