In a decision that holds for public sector offices across the EU, the Luxembourg-based court said a policy of strict neutrality “may be regarded as being objectively justified by a legitimate aim”. The court turned to the EU, asking the court of justice to assess whether the neutrality rule was discriminatory. These symbols included the wearing of earrings with a cross or the holding of Christmas parties, the complainant’s lawyer told the Guardian. The court noted that although overt signs of religious conviction were barred, several photographs produced by the complainant made it clear that “discreet signs of conviction were tolerated”. The employee lodged a complaint with a local court, describing the ban as discriminatory and voicing concerns that her right to freedom of religion had been infringed. Soon after, the municipality amended its terms of employment to require that all employees observe strict neutrality. Court documents noted her job involved little contact with the public. The court was asked to rule after a Muslim employee in the municipality of Ans, eastern Belgium, was told she could not wear a headscarf at work. ![]() “Such a rule is not discriminatory if it is applied in a general and indiscriminate manner to all of that administration’s staff and is limited to what is strictly necessary,” it said. ![]() ![]() However, the court said that bans on clothing or symbols linked to philosophical or religious beliefs had to be applied evenly.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |