GENERAL NOTICE

In January 2025, this online platform will be integrated into Boomportaal (www.boomportaal.nl), after which this platform will be discontinued. From that moment on, this URL will automatically redirect to Boomportaal.

DOI: 10.5553/EELC/187791072023008004017

European Employment Law CasesAccess_open

Rulings

ECJ 28 November 2023, case C-148/22 (Commune d’Ans), Religious Discrimination

OP – v – Commune d’ Ans, Belgian case

Keywords Religious Discrimination
DOI
Show PDF Show fullscreen
Abstract Statistics Citation
This article has been viewed times.
This article been downloaded 0 times.
Suggested citation
, "ECJ 28 November 2023, case C-148/22 (Commune d’Ans), Religious Discrimination", European Employment Law Cases, 4, (2023):193-194

    Wearing of religious symbols in the workplace: a public administration may decide to prohibit all of its employees from wearing such signs.

Dit artikel wordt geciteerd in

    • Summary

      Wearing of religious symbols in the workplace: a public administration may decide to prohibit all of its employees from wearing such signs. The ECJ’s summary of the case can be found on https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2023-11/cp230181en.pdf.

    • Questions

      1. Must Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2000/78 be interpreted as meaning that an internal rule of a municipal authority prohibiting, in a general and indiscriminate manner, the members of that authority’s staff from visibly wearing in the workplace any sign revealing, in particular, philosophical or religious beliefs may be justified by the desire of the said authority to establish an entirely neutral administrative environment?

      2. Must Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2000/78 be interpreted as permitting a public authority to organise an entirely neutral administrative environment by prohibiting all the members of its staff from visibly wearing signs which reveal, in particular, philosophical or religious beliefs, whether or not those staff members are in direct contact with the public, where that prohibition appears mostly to affect women and is therefore liable to constitute indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex?

    • Ruling

      Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that an internal rule of a municipal authority prohibiting, in a general and indiscriminate manner, the members of that authority’s staff from visibly wearing in the workplace any sign revealing, in particular, philosophical or religious beliefs may be justified by the desire of the said authority to establish, having regard to the context in which it operates, an entirely neutral administrative environment provided that that rule is appropriate, necessary and proportionate in the light of that context and taking into account the various rights and interests at stake.


Print this article