The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has endorsed this Tuesday that public administrations can prohibit their employees from wearing visible religious symbols at work, even if they do not perform their duties facing the public, as long as this rule is applied. in a “general and undifferentiated” manner and is limited to what is “strictly necessary.” This is not a general prohibition, but rather the possibility of vetoing this type of proselytizing or religious symbols, underlines the highest European court, which leaves it in the hands of each administration to allow the use of visible religious signs depending on the “concept of neutrality of the service.” public” that is used.
“In order to establish a completely neutral administrative environment, a public administration may prohibit the visible use in the workplace of any sign that reveals philosophical or religious convictions,” states the ruling of the highest European court. Of course, it emphasizes that such a rule is not discriminatory only “if it is applied in a general and undifferentiated manner to all the personnel of that administration and is limited to what is strictly necessary.”
The ruling responds to a preliminary question presented by the labor court of Liège (Belgium) after an employee of the Belgian Municipality of Ans alleged the violation of her freedom of religion and being a victim of discrimination when she was prohibited from wearing an Islamic scarf in her workplace even though, as office manager, she had no contact with the public. The woman had worked for the city council since 2016, but she did not decide to wear a hijab until early 2021, which was when she filed a lawsuit to be able to “wear a veil at work.”
After this initial and individual prohibition, the municipal corporation decided to modify its work regulations and began to require strict neutrality from all its employees, prohibiting any form of proselytism and the use of ostensible signs that could reveal the ideological or religious convictions of all its employees. workers.
Faced with this situation, the Liège court decided to ask the CJEU whether the strict neutrality rule imposed by Ans on all its employees gave rise to discrimination contrary to EU law, a point that the Luxembourg court now denies.
European judges consider that an administration’s policy of strict public neutrality can be “objectively justified by a legitimate purpose” and that said rule is “adequate, necessary and proportionate (…) taking into account the different rights and interests at stake.” At the same time, however, they emphasize that it is equally justified to advocate authorizing, “in a general and undifferentiated way”—that is the key, to not make distinctions between religions or beliefs—the use of visible signs of convictions, “in particular, philosophical or religious”, either in general or only for those employees in direct contact with the public.
“Each Member State, and any infra-state entity [como serían las comunidades autónomas y los ayuntamientos], within the scope of its powers, has a margin of appreciation regarding the concept of neutrality of the public service that it seeks to promote in the workplace, depending on its own context,” considers the CJEU. Of course, the European magistrates insist, this objective must be pursued “in a consistent and systematic manner”, and the measures adopted to achieve it “must be limited to what is strictly necessary.” It is in the hands of the national courts, they add, to verify that these requirements are respected.
#European #justice #endorses #ban #visible #religious #symbols #public #administration