# C_2016419EN.01002701.xml

| 14.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 27 July 2016 — Vera Egenberger v Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung e.V.

(Case C-414/16)

(2016/C 419/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vera Egenberger

Applicant:

Defendant: Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung e.V.

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an employer, such as the defendant in the present case, or the church on its behalf, may itself authoritatively determine whether adherence by an applicant to a specified religion, by reason of the nature of the activities or of the context in which they are carried out, constitutes a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the employer/church’s ethos? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an employer, such as the defendant in the present case, or the church on its behalf, may itself authoritatively determine whether adherence by an applicant to a specified religion, by reason of the nature of the activities or of the context in which they are carried out, constitutes a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the employer/church’s ethos?

1

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the negative:
  In a case such as the present, is it necessary to disapply a provision of national law — such as, in the present case, the first alternative of Paragraph 9(1) of the AGG (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz, General Law on equal treatment) — which provides that a difference of treatment on the ground of religion in the context of employment with religious bodies and the organisations adhering to them is also lawful where adherence to a specific religion, in accordance with the self-conception of the religious body, having regard to its right of self-determination, constitutes a justified occupational requirement? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the negative:

In a case such as the present, is it necessary to disapply a provision of national law — such as, in the present case, the first alternative of Paragraph 9(1) of the AGG (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz, General Law on equal treatment) — which provides that a difference of treatment on the ground of religion in the context of employment with religious bodies and the organisations adhering to them is also lawful where adherence to a specific religion, in accordance with the self-conception of the religious body, having regard to its right of self-determination, constitutes a justified occupational requirement?

| 3. | If the first question is answered in the negative, further:
  What requirements are there as regards the nature of the activities or of the context in which they are carried out, as genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirements, having regard to the organisation’s ethos, in accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the first question is answered in the negative, further:

What requirements are there as regards the nature of the activities or of the context in which they are carried out, as genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirements, having regard to the organisation’s ethos, in accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

1

---