In particular , the reference to private organisations covers establishments that , like IR , are established under private law . 41 That said , it must be noted , first , that the provisions of Article 4 ( 2 ) of Directive 2000 / 78 apply only to churches and other public or private organisations ‘ the ethos of which is based on religion or belief ’ . 42 Second , the second subparagraph of Article 4 ( 2 ) of Directive 2000 / 78 refers to ‘ individuals working ’ for such churches or organisations , which means that the scope of that provision , like that of the first subparagraph of Article 4 ( 2 ) , covers the occupational activities of such individuals . 43 In the second place , with regard to the question of review by national courts of the application of the second subparagraph of Article 4 ( 2 ) of Directive 2000 / 78 , it must be noted that the Court has held , in a case relating to the interpretation of the first subparagraph of Article 4 ( 2 ) of that directive , that the latter provision must be interpreted as meaning that , where a church or other organisation whose ethos is based on religion or belief asserts , in support of a decision or act such as a decision or act rejecting an application for employment with it , that , by reason of the nature of the activities concerned or the context in which the activities are to be carried out , religion constitutes a genuine , legitimate and justified occupational requirement , having regard to the ethos of the church or organisation , it must be possible for such an assertion to be subject , if need be , to effective judicial review by which it can be ensured that the criteria set out in that provision are satisfied in a particular case ( judgment of 17 April 2018 , Egenberger , C ‑ 414 / 16 , EU : C : 2018 : 257 , paragraph 59 ) . 44 Furthermore , the fact that the first subparagraph of Article 4 ( 2 ) of Directive 2000 / 78 refers to national legislation in force at the date of adoption of the directive and national practices existing at that date cannot be interpreted as authorising the Member States not to include compliance with the criteria set out in that provision in the scope of effective judicial review ( see , to that effect , judgment of 17 April 2018 , Egenberger , C ‑ 414 / 16 , EU : C : 2018 : 257 , paragraph 54 ) . 45 The reasons given by the Court in support of that requirement for effective judicial review , which are based on the objective of Directive 2000 / 78 , on the context of Article 4 ( 2 ) , on the safeguards required from Member States , in Article 9 and 10 thereof , in order to ensure that the duties arising under that directive are complied with and the persons who consider themselves to be victims of discrimination are protected , and on the right to effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter ( see , to that effect , judgment of 17 April 2018 , Egenberger , C ‑ 414 / 16 , EU : C : 2018 : 257 , paragraphs 47 to 49 ) similarly apply in circumstances , such as those in the main proceedings , where a private organisation claims , in support of a decision to dismiss one of its employees , that the latter failed to act in good faith and with loyalty to the ethos of that organisation , within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 4 ( 2 ) of the directive . 46 Unlike the first subparagraph of Article 4 ( 2 ) of that directive , the second subparagraph stipulates that one of the occupational requirements that a church or other public or private organisation whose ethos is based on religion or belief can impose on its employees is the requirement that those individuals act in good faith and with loyalty to the ethos of that church or organisation .