CELEX: 62015CA0188
Language: en
Date: 2017-03-14 00:00:00
Title: Case C-188/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Asma Bougnaoui, Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH) v Micropole SA, formerly Micropole Univers SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment — Discrimination based on religion or belief — Genuine and determining occupational requirement — Meaning — Customer’s wish not to have services provided by a worker wearing an Islamic headscarf)

15.5.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 151/4
            
         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Asma Bougnaoui, Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH) v Micropole SA, formerly Micropole Univers SA
   (Case C-188/15) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment - Discrimination based on religion or belief - Genuine and determining occupational requirement - Meaning - Customer’s wish not to have services provided by a worker wearing an Islamic headscarf))
   (2017/C 151/05)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Referring court
   
   Cour de cassation
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Asma Bougnaoui, Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH)
   
      Defendant: Micropole SA, formerly Micropole Univers SA
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   Article 4(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 willingness of an employer to take account of the wishes of a customer no longer to have the services of that employer provided by a worker wearing an Islamic headscarf cannot be considered a genuine and determining occupational requirement within the meaning of that provision.
   
      (1)  OJ C 221, 6.7.2015.