Categories: Insights, Publications · News, Publications

Tag: Corte Europea, Datore di lavoro


6 Aug 2021

EU Court: The employer can prevent employees from wearing political, philosophical or religious symbols if needed (Norme & Tributi Plus Diritto – Il Sole 24 Ore, 6 August 2021 – Vittorio De Luca, Debhora Scarano)

The Court of Justice of the European Union looked at the delicate issue of using religious symbols in the workplace under a ruling published on 15 July 2021, in Joined Cases C-804/18 and C-341/19. According to the Court, the prohibition of wearing any visible form of expression of political, philosophical or religious beliefs in the workplace can be justified by the employer’s need “to appear neutral before customers or prevent social conflicts.”

The decision of the European judges stems from an action brought before the Hamburg Labour Court by two female employees of a company incorporated under German Law, who were asked not to wear conspicuous signs indicating their religious affiliation.

The referring courts decided to question the Court on the interpretation of Directive 2000/78. They asked whether a company’s internal rule prohibiting workers from wearing visible signs of political, philosophical or religious beliefs in the workplace constituted direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of belief. In addition, they wanted to know under what conditions any treatment difference indirectly based on belief resulting from such a rule could be justified, and what factors should be considered when examining the appropriateness of such a treatment difference.

The EU Courts have held that company regulations described above do not constitute direct discrimination on the grounds of belief against workers, provided that “that rule is applied in a general and indiscriminate manner.” According to the Court, such imposition does not entail indirect discrimination as the different treatment imposed is limited to what is strictly necessary and is justified by a policy of neutrality towards customers or users which meets an employer’s need. The burden of proof of this is on the employer.

Continue reading the full version published in  Norme & Tributi Plus Diritto of Il Sole 24 Ore.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Contact

Need information? Write to us and our team of experts will respond as soon as possible.

Fill in the form

More news and insights

20 May 2026

Webinar “May 1st Decree: Key Updates and what’s New” –  HR Coffee with De Luca & Partners

On the occasion of our webinar “An HR Coffee with De Luca Partners,” the speakers Silvia Zulato, Senior Associate, and Alessandro Riccardo Polli from the Labour Consulting Division…

12 May 2026

Legitimate dismissal for false attendance reporting and misuse of access system data (Camera di Commercio Francese in Italia – Vittorio De Luca, Silvia Zulato)

With Order No. 7985 of 31 March 2026, the Italian Supreme Court – Labour Section – confirmed the lawfulness of a dismissal for just cause imposed on an…

30 Apr 2026

Webinar “Bonuses: What Do You Need to Know About Objectives?” – HR Coffee with De Luca & Partners

Yesterday, during our first webinar “HR Coffee with De Luca & Partners", the speakers Vittorio De Luca, Managing Partner, and Alessandra Zilla, Managing Associate at De Luca &…

27 Apr 2026

Management of corporate email after termination of employment: the Italian Data Protection Authority extends the right of access to all emails in the individual email account 

“An employee may access the messages in their corporate email account and the documents stored on their computer after the termination of employment. Any limitations must be justified by specific…

27 Apr 2026

Unemployment benefits and resignation following transfer beyond 50 km: distance alone is not sufficient, employer’s breach must be proven  

With order no. 10559 of 21 April 2026, the Italian Supreme Court addressed the issue of unemployment benefits (i.e. “NASpI”) in the context of resignations for just cause following…

27 Apr 2026

DID YOU KNOW THAT… the probationary period clause is null and void if the duties are described in generic terms? 

The Court of Milan, with judgment no. 683 of 3 April 2026, reaffirmed that a probationary clause (i.e. “patto di prova”) is valid only if it contains a specific indication of the duties subject to…