Court of Justice rules on workplace attire: balancing neutrality and individual religious freedom
Today, the Court of Justice, sitting in Grand Chamber, has delivered its judgment in OP v Commune d’Ans (C-148/22), concerning a request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal du travail de Liège (Labour Court, Liège, Belgium) dealing with a prohibition on wearing religious signs in the workplace which was imposed not by a private employer but by a public employer, in this case a municipal authority.
A lawyer named OP was recruited by the municipal authority of Ans on a fixed-term contract in 2016 and was promoted to head of office in October of the same year. On 8 February 2021, OP informed the municipal authority that she intended to wear an Islamic headscarf in the workplace from 22 February 2021. The municipal authority adopted a first decision prohibiting OP from wearing ‘signs of conviction’ on 18 February 2021, which was later confirmed on 26 February 2021. On 29 March 2021, the municipal authority amended Article 9 of its terms of employment to prohibit workers from wearing any overt sign revealing their ideological or philosophical affiliation or political or religious beliefs.
OP brought several sets of proceedings before national courts, seeking a declaration that the municipal authority had infringed her freedom of religion, and brought an action for an injunction on 26 May 2021, seeking a finding of discrimination on the grounds of religion and gender.
In this context, the tribunal du travail de Liège was uncertain whether the rule of strict neutrality imposed by the municipality gives rise to discrimination contrary to EU law.
First, the Court ruled that a policy of strict neutrality enforced by a public administration among its employees, aimed at creating a completely neutral administrative environment, can be objectively justified by a legitimate aim. Similarly, the choice of another public administration to permit, in a general and indiscriminate manner, the wearing of visible signs of beliefs, including religious or philosophical, in interactions with users, or a prohibition on such signs limited to situations involving such interactions, can also be justified.
Second, the Court emphasizes that each Member State and any infra-State body have discretion in designing the neutrality of the public service within their competences, based on their own context. However, the objective of promoting neutrality must be pursued consistently and systematically, and the measures adopted should be limited to what is strictly necessary.
Finally, the Court underscores that it is the responsibility of national courts to verify whether these requirements are adhered to.
