Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 September 2018

IR v JQ

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment — Occupational activities within churches and other organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief — Occupational requirements — Acting in good faith and with loyalty to the ethos of the church or organisation — Definition — Difference of treatment on the basis of religion or belief — Dismissal of an employee of the Catholic faith performing managerial duties due to a second, civil marriage entered into after a divorce

Case C-68/17


Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
26/10/2018 IR
Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2018:696
11/09/2018 IR
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Opinion
ECLI:EU:C:2018:363
31/05/2018 IR
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Application (OJ)
21/04/2017 IR
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

published in the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general)

Subject-matter

Information not available

Systematic classification scheme

Information not available


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 10 : paragraph 51
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 21 : paragraphs 69, 71
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 21 -P1 : paragraph 35
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 47 : paragraph 45
  • TFEU, Article 17 : paragraphs 48, 51
  • Directive 2000/78 : paragraphs 14, 66
  • Directive 2000/78 -A01 : paragraphs 4, 67
  • Directive 2000/78 -A02P1 : paragraph 5
  • Directive 2000/78 -A02P2 : paragraph 5
  • Directive 2000/78 -A04 : paragraph 6
  • Directive 2000/78 -A04P2 : paragraphs 1, 48, 53, 63, 71
  • Directive 2000/78 -A04P2L1 : paragraphs 42 - 44, 46, 49, 51, 54, 56, 58, 60
  • Directive 2000/78 -A04P2L2 : paragraphs 31 - 34, 36 - 43, 45, 49, 61, 62
  • Directive 2000/78 -A09 : paragraph 45
  • Directive 2000/78 -A09P1 : paragraph 7
  • Directive 2000/78 -A10 : paragraph 45
  • Directive 2000/78 -A010P1 : paragraph 8
  • Directive 2000/78 -C4 : paragraph 3
  • Directive 2000/78 -C23 : paragraph 3
  • Directive 2000/78 -C24 : paragraphs 3, 48
  • Directive 2000/78 -C29 : paragraph 3
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -441/14 -N35 : paragraph 68
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N47 : paragraph 45
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N48 : paragraph 45
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N49 : paragraph 45
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N50 : paragraph 51
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N54 : paragraph 44
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N56 : paragraph 48
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N57 : paragraph 48
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N58 : paragraph 48
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N59 : paragraph 43
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N62 : paragraph 50
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N63 : paragraph 50
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N65 : paragraph 51
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N66 : paragraph 52
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N67 : paragraphs 53, 60
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N68 : paragraph 54
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N71 : paragraph 63
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N72 : paragraph 64
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N73 : paragraph 65
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N75 : paragraph 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N76 : paragraph 69
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -68/17 : paragraph 59

Operative part

  • Interprets : Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 21
  • Interprets : Directive 2000/78 -A04P2
  • Interprets : Directive 2000/78 -A04P2L2

Opinion

  • TFEU, Article 17 : points 50, 55
  • TFEU, Article 17 -P1 : point 4
  • Directive 2000/78 : points 12, 76, 82
  • Directive 2000/78 -A01 : points 6, 78
  • Directive 2000/78 -A02 : point 78
  • Directive 2000/78 -A02P1 : point 7
  • Directive 2000/78 -A02P2 : point 7
  • Directive 2000/78 -A04 : point 8
  • Directive 2000/78 -A04P1 : point 78
  • Directive 2000/78 -A04P2 : points 2, 3, 53 - 55, 57, 65, 87
  • Directive 2000/78 -A04P2L1 : points 52, 56, 61, 62, 70, 71, 74, 80, 81, 88
  • Directive 2000/78 -A04P2L2 : points 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 48, 49, 51, 74, 77, 78, 88
  • Directive 2000/78 -C4 : point 5
  • Directive 2000/78 -C23 : point 5
  • Directive 2000/78 -C24 : points 5, 50
  • Directive 2000/78 -C29 : point 5
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -144/04 -N76 : point 84
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -144/04 -N77 : point 84
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -555/07 -N50 : point 84
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -555/07 -N51 : point 84
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -176/12 -N47 : point 84
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -441/14 : point 76
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -441/14 -N36 : point 84
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 : points 66, 82
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N54 : point 54
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N55 : point 53
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N58 : point 55
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N63 : point 62
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N65 : point 63
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N66 : point 64
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N67 : point 65
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/16 -N76 : point 85


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 09/02/2017

Date of the Opinion

  • 31/05/2018

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

11/09/2018


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Judgment: OJ C 408 from 12.11.2018, p.13

Application: OJ C 144 from 08.05.2017, p.26

Name of the parties

IR

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Fey, Detlev: "Chefarzt-Fall" : Kündigung wegen Wiederheirat kann Diskriminierung sein, ZMV - Die Mitarbeitervertretung 2018 N°5 p.271 (DE)
  2. Gruber, Samuel: "Chefarzt-Fall" : Kündigung wegen Wiederheirat kann Diskriminierung sein, ZMV - Die Mitarbeitervertretung 2018 N°5 p.271-272 (DE)
  3. Bauer, Jobst-Hubertus ; Hofer, Jonas B.: Kündigung eines katholischen Chefarztes wegen Wiederheirat – Loyalitätspflichten, Neue juristische Wochenschrift 2018 p.3090 (DE)
  4. Van Kooten, T.: Ontslag arts in katholiek ziekenhuis vanwege tweede huwelijk, Wezenlijk, legitiem en gerechtvaardigd beroepsvereiste?, Jurisprudentie arbeidsrecht 2018 Afl.14 p.2428-2430 (NL)



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Bundesarbeitsgericht - Germany

Subject-matter

  • Social policy
  • Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties

Procedure and result

  • Reference for a preliminary ruling

Formation of the Court

grande chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Biltgen

Advocate General

Wathelet

Language(s) of the Case

  • German

Language(s) of the Opinion

  • French