法院审理的公共工作场所头巾禁令案:OP 诉安斯市或模糊的艺术

IF 1.1 Q2 LAW European Labour Law Journal Pub Date : 2024-06-20 DOI:10.1177/20319525241261027
Julie Ringelheim
{"title":"法院审理的公共工作场所头巾禁令案:OP 诉安斯市或模糊的艺术","authors":"Julie Ringelheim","doi":"10.1177/20319525241261027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OP v Commune d'Ans, handed down on 28 November 2023, is the fifth judgment issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union on a ban on the wearing of religious symbols in employment, but the first to concern a public workplace. This article argues that the judgment does not help clarify the issue. It is ambiguous and provides only vague guidance to national courts. Two aspects of its reasoning are particularly puzzling: firstly, the absence of any discussion on the very meaning and implications of the neutrality of the public service; and secondly, the recognition of a margin of discretion not only for states but also for sub-state entities, such as municipalities, in determining the concrete content of that principle.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":"177 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Headscarf bans in the public workplace before the Court of Justice: OP v. Commune d’Ans or the Art of Ambiguity\",\"authors\":\"Julie Ringelheim\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20319525241261027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OP v Commune d'Ans, handed down on 28 November 2023, is the fifth judgment issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union on a ban on the wearing of religious symbols in employment, but the first to concern a public workplace. This article argues that the judgment does not help clarify the issue. It is ambiguous and provides only vague guidance to national courts. Two aspects of its reasoning are particularly puzzling: firstly, the absence of any discussion on the very meaning and implications of the neutrality of the public service; and secondly, the recognition of a margin of discretion not only for states but also for sub-state entities, such as municipalities, in determining the concrete content of that principle.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41157,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Labour Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"177 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Labour Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241261027\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Labour Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241261027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2023 年 11 月 28 日宣判的 OP v Commune d'Ans 案是欧盟法院就禁止在工作中佩戴宗教标志发布的第五份判决,但却是第一份涉及公共工作场所的判决。本文认为,该判决无助于澄清问题。判决模棱两可,仅为各国法院提供了模糊的指导。其推理的两个方面尤其令人费解:首先,没有对公共服务中立的含义和影响进行任何讨论;其次,承认在确定该原则的具体内容时,不仅国家,而且市镇等次国家实体都有一定的自由裁量权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Headscarf bans in the public workplace before the Court of Justice: OP v. Commune d’Ans or the Art of Ambiguity
OP v Commune d'Ans, handed down on 28 November 2023, is the fifth judgment issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union on a ban on the wearing of religious symbols in employment, but the first to concern a public workplace. This article argues that the judgment does not help clarify the issue. It is ambiguous and provides only vague guidance to national courts. Two aspects of its reasoning are particularly puzzling: firstly, the absence of any discussion on the very meaning and implications of the neutrality of the public service; and secondly, the recognition of a margin of discretion not only for states but also for sub-state entities, such as municipalities, in determining the concrete content of that principle.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
28.60%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Anti-discrimination cases decided by the Court of Justice of the EU in 2023 Resocialisation through prisoner remuneration: The unconstitutionally low remuneration of working prisoners in Germany Work in prison: Reintegration or exclusion and exploitation? Beyond profit: A model framework for ethical and feasible private prison labour Minding the gap? Blind spots in the ILO's and the EU's perspective on anti-forced labour policy
×
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