Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62015CA0188

    Case C-188/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Asma Bougnaoui, Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH) v Micropole SA, formerly Micropole Univers SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment — Discrimination based on religion or belief — Genuine and determining occupational requirement — Meaning — Customer’s wish not to have services provided by a worker wearing an Islamic headscarf)

    OJ C 151, 15.5.2017, p. 4–5 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    15.5.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 151/4


    Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Asma Bougnaoui, Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH) v Micropole SA, formerly Micropole Univers SA

    (Case C-188/15) (1)

    ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment - Discrimination based on religion or belief - Genuine and determining occupational requirement - Meaning - Customer’s wish not to have services provided by a worker wearing an Islamic headscarf))

    (2017/C 151/05)

    Language of the case: French

    Referring court

    Cour de cassation

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicants: Asma Bougnaoui, Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH)

    Defendant: Micropole SA, formerly Micropole Univers SA

    Operative part of the judgment

    Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the willingness of an employer to take account of the wishes of a customer no longer to have the services of that employer provided by a worker wearing an Islamic headscarf cannot be considered a genuine and determining occupational requirement within the meaning of that provision.


    (1)  OJ C 221, 6.7.2015.


    Top