Read Time: 05 minutes

In a landmark ruling, European Court of Justice held that Prohibiting Islamic Headscarf and other religious signs at workplace isn’t discriminatory. ECJ defended political, ideological and religious neutrality policy.

A Full Bench of K. Lenaerts, R. Silva de Lapuerta, A. Prechal, M. Vilaras, E. Regan, L. Bay Larsen, N. Piçarra and A. Kumin, T. von Danwitz, C. Toader, M. Safjan, F. Biltgen (Rapporteur), P.G. Xuereb, L.S. Rossi and I. Jarukaitis, JJ., held,

“Prohibiting Islamic headscarf and any visible sign of political, ideological or religious beliefs does not constitute discrimination on the grounds of religion.”

An employee working at the position of sales assistant and cashier of “MH” was transferred to another post as she had refused remove her headscarf in accordance with MH's policy of neutrality.

Later, she was instructed to attend her workplace without large-sized signs of any political, philosophical or religious beliefs, not complying with which she was sent home.

As a consequence, she brought an action against “MH” invoking her freedom of religion, claiming that the policy of neutrality sought by MH did not enjoy unconditional priority over the freedom of religion and must be subject to a proportionality test.

Labour Court and the Federal Labour Court, Germany decided to stay the proceedings and refer the same to ECJ, for a preliminary ruling.

Court’s Findings

1. Action of “MH” justified viewing through the lens of legitimate aim and the means of achieving the same – Court placed reliance on Article 2(2)(b)(i) of Directive 2000 of 78.

“As regards to condition relating to the existence of a legitimate aim, an employer's desire to display, in relations with both public- and private-sector customers, a policy of political, philosophical or religious neutrality may be regarded as legitimate…(however) mere desire of an employer to pursue a policy of neutrality -while in itself a legitimate aim - is not sufficient, as such, to justify objectively a difference of treatment indirectly based on religion or belief,” Court observed.

2. Any such internal policy shall be made uniformly applicable, that is to say, such policy can be justified only if that prohibition covers all visible forms of expression of political, philosophical or religious beliefs.

“A prohibition which is limited to the wearing of conspicuous, large-sized signs of political, philosophical or religious beliefs is liable to constitute direct discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, which cannot in any event be justified on the basis of that provision,” Court noted.

Case Title: IX v. WABE eV, C-804 of 18