# C_2022463EN.01000201.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — L.F. v SCRL

(Case C-344/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Establishment of a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation - Prohibition of discrimination on the ground of religion or belief - Internal rule of a private undertaking prohibiting any manifestation, in the workplace, of religious, philosophical or political belief - Prohibition including words, clothing, or any other means of manifesting those beliefs - Wearing of an item of religious clothing)

(2022/C 463/02)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: L.F.

Defendant: SCRL

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the words ‘religion or belief’ contained therein constitute a single ground of discrimination, covering both religious belief and philosophical or spiritual belief. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the words ‘religion or belief’ contained therein constitute a single ground of discrimination, covering both religious belief and philosophical or spiritual belief.

| 2. | Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that a provision of an undertaking’s terms of employment which prohibits workers from manifesting, through words, through clothing, or in any other way, their religious or philosophical beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be, does not constitute, with regard to workers who intend to exercise their freedom of religion and conscience through the visible wearing of a sign or an item of clothing with religious connotations, direct discrimination ‘on the [ground] of religion or belief’ for the purposes of that directive, provided that that provision is applied in a general and undifferentiated way. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that a provision of an undertaking’s terms of employment which prohibits workers from manifesting, through words, through clothing, or in any other way, their religious or philosophical beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be, does not constitute, with regard to workers who intend to exercise their freedom of religion and conscience through the visible wearing of a sign or an item of clothing with religious connotations, direct discrimination ‘on the [ground] of religion or belief’ for the purposes of that directive, provided that that provision is applied in a general and undifferentiated way.

| 3. | Article 1 of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding provisions of national legislation, which are intended to ensure the transposition of that directive into national law and which are construed as meaning that religious belief and philosophical belief constitute two separate grounds of discrimination, from being taken into account as ‘provisions which are more favourable to the protection of the principle of equal treatment than those laid down in [that directive]’ for the purposes of Article 8(1) thereof. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 1 of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding provisions of national legislation, which are intended to ensure the transposition of that directive into national law and which are construed as meaning that religious belief and philosophical belief constitute two separate grounds of discrimination, from being taken into account as ‘provisions which are more favourable to the protection of the principle of equal treatment than those laid down in [that directive]’ for the purposes of Article 8(1) thereof.

---

(1)  OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.

---