The Court of Justice of the European Union has recently reaffirmed and consolidated its case law concerning religious ethos organisations, particularly Catholic institutions, and the concept of an “essential and determining occupational requirement” under Article 4 of Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.

Under that provision, Member States may provide that a difference of treatment based on a protected characteristic shall not constitute discrimination where, by reason of the nature of the particular occupational activities concerned or of the context in which they are carried out, such a characteristic constitutes a genuine, legitimate, and justified occupational requirement. Any derogation from the principle of equal treatment is permissible only where the objective pursued is legitimate and the requirement proportionate. At the same time, the Directive recognises the right of public or private organisations whose ethos is based on religion or belief to require employees to act in good faith and with loyalty towards the organisation’s ethos.

During the course of employment within a religious ethos organisation, an employee subject to a particular duty of loyalty nevertheless remains free to leave his or her religious community. In situations involving internal disagreement or doctrinal dissent, individuals retain the absolute right to change religion or belief and to exercise their negative freedom of religion by withdrawing from a faith community. Conversely, religious organisations are likewise entitled to protect their cohesion, unity, and public identity pursuant to the principle of organisational autonomy generally recognised under European law.

The question therefore arises whether departure from the Catholic Church may affect the employment relationship between a religiously oriented employer and an employee bound by duties of loyalty and fidelity towards the organisation’s ethos.

According to the Court of Justice, dismissal on grounds of apostasy must satisfy a strict proportionality assessment that does not extend to the substantive evaluation of religious dogma, which remains outside the jurisdiction of state courts. Instead, the national court must determine whether the occupational requirement imposed on the employee is essential, legitimate, and justified in light of three factors: the ethos of the organisation; the nature of the employee’s duties and professional activities; and the context in which those duties are performed.

This principle was reaffirmed in Katholische Schwangerschaftsberatung v JB (Case C-258/24, 17 March 2026), concerning the dismissal of an employee working within a multi-faith counselling team providing support to pregnant women with the aim of encouraging continuation of pregnancy. Irrespective of their religious affiliation, all employees were subject to a duty of loyalty. Catholic employees, however, were bound by additional obligations: in particular, formal withdrawal from the Catholic Church — which occurred in the present case — was expressly classified as a serious breach of that duty.

The Court’s reasoning echoes two earlier landmark judgments. In Vera Egenberger v Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung eV (Case C-414/16, 17 April 2018), the applicant had been excluded entirely from recruitment on religious grounds. The Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) sought to recruit a Protestant Christian employee to prepare a report concerning Germany’s implementation of the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Ms Egenberger was denied consideration because she did not belong to the relevant religious denomination.

Similarly, in IR v JQ (Case C-68/17, 11 September 2018), the Court addressed the dismissal of a senior physician employed by a Catholic hospital. The employee had obtained a civil divorce and subsequently entered into a second civil marriage. Such conduct was regarded as incompatible with the Catholic doctrine concerning the sacred and indissoluble nature of religious marriage.

These judgments form part of an increasingly coherent body of EU case law according to which the autonomy of churches and religious organisations does not amount to an unrestricted right to discriminate on grounds of religion or belief. Any occupational requirement related to an employee’s religion or belief must be genuine, authentic, legitimate, proportionate, and objectively justified with regard to the specific duties and position concerned. It is ultimately for the national court to assess, in the circumstances of the individual case, whether the conditions of employment or any dismissal comply with these criteria.

 

(Focus by Tania Pagotto)

 

EU Case Law on Religion and Genuine Occupational Requirements (recruitment and dismissal)

 

Katholische Schwangerschaftsberatung v JB, Case C-258/24, CJEU (Grand Chamber), 17 March 2026: link

 

IR v JQ, Case C-68/17, CJEU (Grand Chamber), 11 September 2018: link

 

Vera Egenberger v Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung eV, Case C-414/16, CJEU (Grand Chamber), 17 April 2018: link

 

Selected bibliography:

 

P. Annicchino, Il conflitto tra il principio di autonomia dei gruppi religiosi ed altri diritti fondamentali: recenti pronunce della Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti e della Corte europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo, in Quaderni di diritto e politica ecclesiastica, 1, 2013, pp. 55–69

 

A. Bettetini, Identità religiosa del datore di lavoro e licenziamento ideologico nella giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti umani, in Diritti Umani e Diritto Internazionale, 2, 2011, pp. 329–342

N. Colaianni, Divieto di discriminazione religiosa sul lavoro e organizzazioni religiose, in Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale (www.statoechiese.it), 18, 2018, pp. 1–30

 

P. Floris, Organizzazioni di tendenza religiosa tra Direttiva europea, diritti nazionali e Corte di giustizia UE, in Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale (www.statoechiese.it), 12, 2019, pp. 1–32

 

L. Di Gregorio, La libertà di manifestare la religione o le convinzioni personali sul luogo di lavoro e il (non sempre facile) bilanciamento degli interessi in conflitto, in DPCE Online, issue 4, 2022, pp. 4355–4368

 

V. Pacillo, Contributo allo studio del diritto di libertà religiosa nel rapporto di lavoro subordinato, Giuffrè, Milan, 2003

 

J. Pasquali Cerioli, Parità di trattamento e organizzazioni di tendenza religiose nel «nuovo» diritto ecclesiastico europeo, in Quaderni di diritto e politica ecclesiastica, 1, 2013, pp. 71–86

 

G. Ragone, Enti confessionali e licenziamento ideologico. Uno sguardo alla giurisprudenza della Corte di Strasburgo, in Ephemerides Iuris Canonici, vol. 54(1), 2014, pp. 199–224

 

M. Toscano, La discriminazione religiosa del lavoratore nella giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo, in Quaderni di diritto e politica ecclesiastica, 1, 2013, pp. 43–53