CJEU Case C-258/24 / Judgment

Katholische Schwangerschaftsberatung v JB
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (Grand Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
17/03/2026
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2026:211
  • CJEU Case C-258/24 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 2000/78/EC – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Occupational activities within churches and other organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief – Association providing counselling on pregnancy to pregnant women – Occupational requirements – Acting in good faith and with loyalty to the ethos of the church or organisation – Difference of treatment on grounds of religion or belief – Dismissal of a worker on the ground of her leaving the Catholic church

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:

    Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, in the light of Article 10(1) and Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

    must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a private organisation the ethos of which is based on a religion may require of an employee who is a member of a certain church practising that religion not to leave that church during the employment relationship, on pain of dismissal or, in order to continue the employment relationship, to rejoin that church after leaving it, even though

    –        that organisation employs other persons to carry out the same duties as those of the employee in question, without requiring that those persons be members of that church, and

    –        that employee does not openly act in a manner that is antagonistic to the church concerned,

    where, in the light of the nature of the occupational activities of that employee or of the context in which those activities are carried out, those occupational requirements are not genuine, legitimate and justified having regard to that organisation’s ethos.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    38. In those circumstances, it must be held that, by that question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2000/78, read in the light of Article 10(1) and of Article 21(1) of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a private organisation the ethos of which is based on a religion may require of an employee who is a member of a certain church practising that religion not to leave that church during the employment relationship, on pain of dismissal or, in order to continue the employment relationship, to rejoin that church after having left it, even though

    ...

    42. As regards the issue of whether such a difference of treatment may be justified under the conditions provided for in Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2000/78, it should be recalled that that directive’s objective, as stated in Article 1 thereof, is to lay down a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds inter alia of religion or belief as regards employment and occupation, with a view to putting into effect in the Member States the principle of equal treatment. The directive is thus a specific expression, in the field covered by it, of the general prohibition of discrimination laid down in Article 21 of the Charter (judgment of 17 April 2018, Egenberger, C‑414/16, EU:C:2018:257, paragraph 47).

    43. According to the Court’s case-law, while Directive 2000/78 aims to protect the fundamental right of workers not to be discriminated against on grounds of their religion or belief, the fact remains that, by means of Article 4(2) thereof, that directive also aims to take into account the right of autonomy of churches and other public or private organisations whose ethos is based on religion or belief, as recognised by Article 17 TFEU and Article 10 of the Charter, which corresponds to Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 (judgment of 17 April 2018, Egenberger, C‑414/16, EU:C:2018:257, paragraph 50).

    ...

    46. However, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion guaranteed by Article 10 of the Charter has as its corollary the prohibition of any discrimination based on religion enshrined in Article 21(1) thereof (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 November 2023, Commune d’Ans, C‑148/22, EU:C:2023:924, paragraph 40). Thus, the mere allegation by a religious community that there is an actual or potential threat to its autonomy is not sufficient to justify any difference of treatment on the grounds of religion or belief. That community must also show, in the light of the circumstances of the individual case, that the alleged risk of interference in its autonomy is probable and substantial, that the difference of treatment at issue does not affect the substance of the right to equal treatment, does not go beyond what is necessary to eliminate that risk and does not serve any other purpose unrelated to the exercise of the religious community’s autonomy. The national courts must ensure that those conditions are satisfied, by conducting an in-depth examination of the circumstances of the case and a thorough balancing exercise between the competing interests at stake (see, by analogy, ECtHR, 12 June 2014, Fernández Martínez v. Spain, CE:ECHR:2014:0612JUD005603007, § 132)

    ...

    53. With respect, in the first place, to the ‘genuine’ nature of that occupational requirement, the Court has stated that the use of that adjective means that professing the religion or belief on which the ethos of the church or organisation is founded must appear necessary because of the importance of the occupational activity in question for the manifestation of that ethos or the exercise by the church or organisation of its right of autonomy, as recognised by Article 17 TFEU and Article 10 of the Charter (judgments of 17 April 2018, Egenberger, C‑414/16, EU:C:2018:257, paragraph 65, and of 11 September 2018, IR, C‑68/17, EU:C:2018:696, paragraph 51).

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)