20 July 2021
Pride or Prejudice?
The joined cases IX v Wabe and MH Müller Handels GmbH offered the CJEU a second chance to heed the arguments raised against Achbita and reconsider its decision. Hopes that the Court would be willing to revise Achbita diminished significantly after AG Rantos’s disappointing Opinion in the case. Last week's decision in IX v Wabe to largely uphold Achbita was then also unsurprising, but nevertheless disappointing. Continue reading >>
1 
01 March 2021
Preserving Prejudice in the Name of Profit
Few CJEU judgments in recent years have received more criticism than the ‘headscarf judgments’, Achbita and Bougnaoui. In particular the decision in Achbita that private employers can legitimately pursue a policy of neutrality and ban expressions of political, religious, or philosophical belief at work, proved contentious. Two other headscarf cases, IX v Wabe and MH Müller, are currently pending before the CJEU and provide it with an excellent opportunity to do so. However, the first signs are not promising: Last week, Advocate General Rantos delivered his Opinion in these cases, which may be even more unpalatable than the Achbita judgment itself. Continue reading >>13 December 2019
Constitution Before Administration
On 5 December 2019, Italy’s Constitutional Court nullified regional legislation which made it extremely difficult for religious minority groups to set up places of worship. The provisions in question vested the administrative authorities with nearly unfettered discretion in deciding on the approval of applications. The Constitutional Court has now made clear that the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion cannot be circumvented by administrative procedures. Continue reading >>
0
28 May 2019
On Wearing the Kippa in Public – and in Public Service
The kippa, the Jewish skullcap, is again in the news after the admission of Felix Klein, Germany's Commissioner for Jewish Life and the Fight Against Anti-Semitism, that he cannot recommend that Jews wear a kippa everywhere in Germany. The statement has been harshly criticized as an official surrender to antisemitism. Such criticism is woefully misplaced. Klein certainly intended no surrender and was merely recognizing the existing reality. Continue reading >>29 June 2018
Fidesz and Faith: Ethno-Nationalism in Hungary
“The protection of Hungary’s self-identity and its Christian culture is the duty of all state organizations” says one of the new provisions that were adopted on 20 June to change the country’s Fundamental Law of 2011. Besides its potential to limit fundamental rights, what are the possible consequences of this constitutional change, in legal, cultural and political terms? Continue reading >>10 September 2017
Reconciling Religion: Lessons Learned from the Triple Talaq Case for Comparative Constitutional Governance
The recent case of Shayara Bano v Union of India heard before the Supreme Court of India provide helpful guidance for how a secular democratic regime with a multiplicity of religious, ethnic, and cultural communities can manage constitutional governance with an increasing number of seemingly irreconcilable tensions. Pluralist societies such as Canada and the United States grapple with a variety of delicate balancing acts: in such instance, the need to reconcile accommodation for religious and cultural minorities with the protection of gender rights on the other. Continue reading >>
0
24 August 2017
How not to Divorce Muslim Women in India
The Supreme Court of India has declared the Muslim practice of men divorcing their wife by repeating the word "talaq" three times unconstitutional. Continue reading >>16 August 2017
Reviewing the recent Ban on Ritual Slaughter in Flanders
Flanders has adopted a ban of religious slaughter without stunning, following the Walloon region that had done the same earlier this year. In analysing the Flemish decree, three critical remarks need to be made in putting the new law into the right legal perspective. Continue reading >>06 July 2017
Justitias Dresscode: Wie das BVerfG Neutralität mit „Normalität“ verwechselt
Am Dienstagmorgen hat die Erste Kammer des Zweiten Senats einer hessischen Rechtsreferendarin einstweiligen Rechtsschutz gegen ein pauschales Kopftuchverbot verwehrt, das Beamt*innen nach § 45 HBG auferlegt wird. Diese Norm soll auch auf Referendar*innen Anwendung finden. Die Referendarin darf nun keine gerichtliche Sitzungsleitung und keine Sitzungsvertretung für die Staatsanwaltschaft übernehmen. Zudem muss sie aus dem Publikum den Verhandlungen beiwohnen, während ihre Mitreferendar*innen neben der* Richter*in auf der Bank sitzen dürfen. Selten wurden Ausschlusspraktiken räumlich so deutlich gemacht. Continue reading >>01 June 2017