The Protected Grounds of Religion and Belief: Lessons for EU Non-Discrimination Law

IF 1.5 Q1 LAW German Law Journal Pub Date : 2023-07-06 DOI:10.1017/glj.2023.54
M. van den Brink
{"title":"The Protected Grounds of Religion and Belief: Lessons for EU Non-Discrimination Law","authors":"M. van den Brink","doi":"10.1017/glj.2023.54","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article draws lessons for EU non-discrimination law from the protected grounds of religion and belief through a discussion of the CJEU’s headscarf judgments. The article has two ambitions. First, the judgments are used to draw broader lessons for EU non-discrimination law, in relation to the distinction between and the justification of direct and indirect discrimination, as well as the purpose of protecting against (religious) discrimination. Second, these lessons are used to analyze the headscarf judgments and the criticism directed at them. While there is widespread agreement that the CJEU erred in these judgments, there is little agreement as to what mistakes were made. Through a discussion of these judgments, the article clarifies the difference between direct and indirect discrimination and the justification of both forms of discrimination. It is argued that the headscarf cases correctly distinguished between direct and indirect discrimination, and that the problem lies in the justificatory burden for indirect discriminatory measures, which was set too low by the CJEU.","PeriodicalId":36303,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"German Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.54","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The article draws lessons for EU non-discrimination law from the protected grounds of religion and belief through a discussion of the CJEU’s headscarf judgments. The article has two ambitions. First, the judgments are used to draw broader lessons for EU non-discrimination law, in relation to the distinction between and the justification of direct and indirect discrimination, as well as the purpose of protecting against (religious) discrimination. Second, these lessons are used to analyze the headscarf judgments and the criticism directed at them. While there is widespread agreement that the CJEU erred in these judgments, there is little agreement as to what mistakes were made. Through a discussion of these judgments, the article clarifies the difference between direct and indirect discrimination and the justification of both forms of discrimination. It is argued that the headscarf cases correctly distinguished between direct and indirect discrimination, and that the problem lies in the justificatory burden for indirect discriminatory measures, which was set too low by the CJEU.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
受保护的宗教和信仰理由:欧盟非歧视法律的教训
摘要本文通过对欧盟法院头巾判决的讨论,从受保护的宗教和信仰理由出发,为欧盟非歧视法的制定提供借鉴。这篇文章有两个野心。首先,这些判决被用来为欧盟非歧视法汲取更广泛的教训,涉及直接和间接歧视的区别和正当性,以及保护免受(宗教)歧视的目的。其次,这些教训被用来分析头巾的判断和针对他们的批评。虽然人们普遍认为欧盟法院在这些判决中犯了错误,但对于犯了什么错误,人们几乎没有达成一致。通过对这些判断的讨论,文章阐明了直接歧视和间接歧视之间的区别以及这两种歧视形式的正当性。有人认为,头巾案件正确地区分了直接歧视和间接歧视,问题在于间接歧视措施的正当责任,欧盟法院将其设定得太低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
German Law Journal
German Law Journal Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
75
期刊最新文献
Demystifying autonomy: tracing the international law origins of the EU principle of autonomy – ERRATUM My Body Is My Temple? Comparing Sexual Crimes and Property Crimes in a Human Rights Tradition – ERRATUM The Diagonal Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: From “Displacement” through “Agency” to “Scope” and Beyond My Body Is My Temple? Comparing Sexual Crimes and Property Crimes in a Human Rights Tradition Regulating Parties by Constitutional Rules in Liberal Democracies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1