A/HRC/58/49/Add.1 34. Further to discrimination concerns, reported objections to the tiered system clustered around solidarity, autonomy and mission. It reportedly prevents solidarity between and within religious communities across tiers and creates division between different denominations or communities of the same religion who find themselves differentially recognised at higher or lower tiers, or with some recognised others not. State funding reportedly can also compromise church autonomy and mission. Whilst some religious actors welcome funding for religious schools, hospitals, and social institutions – and transferring many such State facilities to becoming church-run – others deeply regret it for entangling them in complex professional services for which they were not best equipped, distracting them from their core spiritual missions and independent voice, and compromising their perceived neutrality and independence from the State. 35. CSOs pointed out the human rights consequences on others when a State-run service facility is transferred to becoming church-run; to those who hold other beliefs, to minority religions and beliefs, including humanists and atheists, and to those who want to see the strengthened role and accountability of the State or municipalities for these services. In short, and regardless of intentions, the extensive state-church funding relationships can set up patrimonial relationships that lead to human rights concerns and challenges around transparency and accountability. There was a strong call by numerous actors for greater neutrality and transparency in open tenders for running such services, and for greater oversight over financial flows, free of any arbitrariness and politicisation. 36. Religious organizations can also be relegated within the four-tier system, losing related benefits and subsidies. In this respect, the Special Rapporteur examined the situation of the Hungarian Evangelical Fellowship (MET), led by pastor Gábor Iványi, which originally ran a considerable number of charitable institutions, including 63 schools, care homes and homeless shelters in Hungary’s poorest communities. MET lost its “established church” status through the 2011 Church Law and has faced severe financial difficulties, losing government funding for its schools and social institutions such as homeless shelters. Despite appealing to both domestic courts and being one of the complainants in the 2014 ECtHR case referred to above (para. 18), the church has yet to regain its standing. In 2017, the ECtHR ordered Hungary to pay 1 billion forints (€3,000,000) compensation to MET.12 37. In 2021, the charitable status of MET for the purpose of receiving donations through income taxes was reinstated, and MET became a tier 2 ‘registered church’. However, the Government has discontinued prior funding from social and educational institutions operated by the church. Many of these institutions have had to close and MET faces bankruptcy. A MET spokesperson said this is not just an administrative violation but one of religious freedom, as the church is prevented from properly carrying out the charitable work inherent to its religious identity. C. Discrimination on the basis of religion or belief 38. Article XV of the Constitution establishes the principle that all individuals should be treated equally and fairly, comprehensively prohibiting discrimination on various grounds including religion. The 1981 Declaration defines intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis”. (article 2). 39. While the 2018 amendments to the Church Law, as referred to above (para. 19), introduced some positive changes, they did not fully address the discriminatory aspects of the law, and further reforms are needed to ensure that all religion and belief communities can operate without discrimination. 40. The UN Human Rights Committee caselaw has clarified whether distinctions in State funding for different religious organizations constitutes discrimination. In a case relating to 12 Magyarországi Evangéliumi Testvérközösség v. Hungary, no. 54977/12, 25/7/17. 7