Belgium / Court of Justice of the European Union / C-148/22

Country

Belgium

Title

Belgium / Court of Justice of the European Union / C-148/22

View full case

Year

2023

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Tuesday, November 28, 2023

Incident(s) concerned/related

Discrimination

Related Bias motivation

Religion

Groups affected

Muslims

Court/Body type

Court of Justice of the European Union

Court/Body

Court of Justice of the European Union

Key facts of the case

The case involved a municipal employee in Belgium who held a back-office position with no direct interaction with the public. After she asked for permission to wear a headscarf at work, her employer amended the employment conditions to include a policy of "exclusive neutrality." This policy barred all municipal employees, regardless of whether they dealt with the public, from wearing any visible symbols that could indicate their religious or philosophical beliefs.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The Court found that a general and undifferentiated rule does not constitute direct discrimination unless it is applied inconsistently. However, such a rule may constitute indirect discrimination if it puts individuals of a particular religion at a specific disadvantage. Indirect discrimination under Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78 is not unlawful if it pursues a legitimate aim and the means are appropriate and necessary. The Court accepted that a municipal authority may legitimately pursue a policy of “exclusive neutrality” in its administration. This objective must be assessed within the specific context of the member state, allowing a margin of discretion at national and infra-national levels. Still, the neutrality policy must be applied consistently and proportionately to be justified. This means that the prohibition must be genuinely pursued across the board and be limited to what is strictly necessary for achieving neutrality in the public service.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

The central issue was whether a general ban on visible religious or philosophical symbols at work could be justified under EU anti-discrimination law, particularly when it potentially disadvantages specific religious groups. A secondary issue—whether such a policy constitutes indirect discrimination based on sex—was raised but not properly supported by the referring court.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

The Court concluded that such a neutrality policy may be lawful under Directive 2000/78 if it is objectively justified, appropriate, and necessary in light of the public administration's legitimate aim. The legitimacy of such a policy hinges on its consistent and proportionate application. However, the second question concerning indirect discrimination based on sex was declared inadmissible due to insufficient information from the referring court and because it fell under Directive 2006/54/EC, not 2000/78. Quoting the lack of legal basis in the Employment Equality Directive, the CJEU did not engage with the critical question of intersectional discrimination, as it did not take into consideration that particularly women would be affected by the neutrality requirement.

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

‘the policy of “exclusive neutrality” which a public administration […] intends to impose on its employees, depending on its own context and within the framework of its competences, with a view to establishing within it an entirely neutral administrative environment may be regarded as being objectively justified by a legitimate aim.’

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.