El TJUE no prohíbe el uso del velo islámico. Comentario a las sentencias del TJUE de 14 de marzo de 2017, asuntos C-157/15 y C-188/15
The European Court of Justice has, for the first time, dealt with the issue of religious symbols in general, and the Islamic headscarf (hijab) in particular, in two judgments dated on 14 March 2017. Although headlines in most media inform of an unequivocal ban, it is appropriate to qualify this asse...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Spanish |
| Published: |
Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales (España)
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=6119560 |
| Source: | Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo, ISSN 1138-4026, Año nº 21, Nº 57, 2017, pags. 577-613 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
|
| id |
dialnet-ar-18-ART0001284847
|
|---|---|
| record_format |
dialnet
|
| institution |
Dialnet
|
| collection |
Dialnet AR
|
| source |
Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo, ISSN 1138-4026, Año nº 21, Nº 57, 2017, pags. 577-613
|
| language |
Spanish
|
| topic |
discriminación religiosa
Unión Europea símbolos religiosos velo islámico Directiva 78 2000 relaciones laborales Freedom of religion religious discrimination European Union religious symbols Islamic veil Directive 2000 78 Libertad religiosa CE labor relations |
| spellingShingle |
discriminación religiosa
Unión Europea símbolos religiosos velo islámico Directiva 78 2000 relaciones laborales Freedom of religion religious discrimination European Union religious symbols Islamic veil Directive 2000 78 Libertad religiosa CE labor relations Contreras Mazarío, José María El TJUE no prohíbe el uso del velo islámico. Comentario a las sentencias del TJUE de 14 de marzo de 2017, asuntos C-157/15 y C-188/15 |
| description |
The European Court of Justice has, for the first time, dealt with the issue of religious symbols in general, and the Islamic headscarf (hijab) in particular, in two judgments dated on 14 March 2017. Although headlines in most media inform of an unequivocal ban, it is appropriate to qualify this assertion, as no ban has been imposed, or at least not in the categorical terms that such headlines seem to convey. In the world of law elements are never chemically pure, and that is also the case with the two judgments of the Court of Justice that are subject to analysis in this article. The Court of Justice has based its rulings on the approaches of both advocates general to the merits of their respective case, embracing in a systematic and balanced manner the arguments of advocate general Kokott in relation to direct discrimination, but also the views of advocate general Sharpston with regard to indirect discrimination. In particular, the Court of Justice rules against the existence of a direct discrimination on the basis of the neutrality developed by both companies with regard to religious or philosophical symbols as part of their image policy towards customers. However, the Court does not appear as categorical with respect to indirect discrimination, especially when it is related to the professional activity of the worker (Bougnaoui/Micropole case), or to the possibility of offering another job not involving interaction with third parties (Achbita/G4S case).
|
| format |
Article
|
| author |
Contreras Mazarío, José María
|
| author_facet |
Contreras Mazarío, José María
|
| author_sort |
Contreras Mazarío, José María
|
| title |
El TJUE no prohíbe el uso del velo islámico. Comentario a las sentencias del TJUE de 14 de marzo de 2017, asuntos C-157/15 y C-188/15
|
| title_short |
El TJUE no prohíbe el uso del velo islámico. Comentario a las sentencias del TJUE de 14 de marzo de 2017, asuntos C-157/15 y C-188/15
|
| title_full |
El TJUE no prohíbe el uso del velo islámico. Comentario a las sentencias del TJUE de 14 de marzo de 2017, asuntos C-157/15 y C-188/15
|
| title_fullStr |
El TJUE no prohíbe el uso del velo islámico. Comentario a las sentencias del TJUE de 14 de marzo de 2017, asuntos C-157/15 y C-188/15
|
| title_full_unstemmed |
El TJUE no prohíbe el uso del velo islámico. Comentario a las sentencias del TJUE de 14 de marzo de 2017, asuntos C-157/15 y C-188/15
|
| title_sort |
el tjue no prohíbe el uso del velo islámico. comentario a las sentencias del tjue de 14 de marzo de 2017, asuntos c-157/15 y c-188/15
|
| publisher |
Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales (España)
|
| publishDate |
2017
|
| url |
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=6119560
|
| _version_ |
1709748549107843072
|
| spelling |
dialnet-ar-18-ART00012848472019-03-01El TJUE no prohíbe el uso del velo islámico. Comentario a las sentencias del TJUE de 14 de marzo de 2017, asuntos C-157/15 y C-188/15Contreras Mazarío, José Maríadiscriminación religiosaUnión Europeasímbolos religiososvelo islámicoDirectiva 782000relaciones laboralesFreedom of religionreligious discriminationEuropean Unionreligious symbolsIslamic veilDirective 200078Libertad religiosaCElabor relationsThe European Court of Justice has, for the first time, dealt with the issue of religious symbols in general, and the Islamic headscarf (hijab) in particular, in two judgments dated on 14 March 2017. Although headlines in most media inform of an unequivocal ban, it is appropriate to qualify this assertion, as no ban has been imposed, or at least not in the categorical terms that such headlines seem to convey. In the world of law elements are never chemically pure, and that is also the case with the two judgments of the Court of Justice that are subject to analysis in this article. The Court of Justice has based its rulings on the approaches of both advocates general to the merits of their respective case, embracing in a systematic and balanced manner the arguments of advocate general Kokott in relation to direct discrimination, but also the views of advocate general Sharpston with regard to indirect discrimination. In particular, the Court of Justice rules against the existence of a direct discrimination on the basis of the neutrality developed by both companies with regard to religious or philosophical symbols as part of their image policy towards customers. However, the Court does not appear as categorical with respect to indirect discrimination, especially when it is related to the professional activity of the worker (Bougnaoui/Micropole case), or to the possibility of offering another job not involving interaction with third parties (Achbita/G4S case).El Tribunal de Justicia (TJUE) ha abordado, por primera vez, en dos sentencias, de 14 de marzo de 2017, la temática de los símbolos religiosos en general, y del pañuelo islámico (hiyab) en particular. Aunque la mayoría de los medios de comunicación han difundido titulares en los que se afirma sin ambages la prohibición, debemos matizar desde este momento inicial que no es así o, al menos, no de manera tan categórica como parecen transmitir dichos titulares. En el mundo del derecho los elementos nunca aparecen químicamente puros; y eso es lo que sucede en las dos sentencias del TJUE que se van a analizar. El TJUE ha recogido los planteamientos de fondo de ambas abogadas generales. En concreto, el TJUE falla en contra de la existencia de una discriminación directa sobre la base de la neutralidad desarrollada por ambas empresas en materia de símbolos religiosos o filosóficos como parte de su política de imagen con los clientes. Sin embargo, el TJUE no se muestra tan categórico respecto de la discriminación indirecta, sobre todo cuando esta se vincula bien con la profesionalidad de la trabajadora (Directiva 2000/78, art. 4.1) (asunto Bougnaoui/Micopole), bien con la posibilidad de ofrecer otro puesto de trabajo en el que no tuvieran que relacionarse con terceras personas (asunto Achbita/G4S). De esta manera, el TJUE acoge de una manera equilibrada y sistemática los argumentos de la abogada general Kokott en relación con la discriminación directa, pero también los considerandos de la abogada general Sharpston por lo que respecta a la discriminación indirecta.Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales (España)2017text (article)application/pdfhttps://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=6119560(Revista) ISSN 1138-4026Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo, ISSN 1138-4026, Año nº 21, Nº 57, 2017, pags. 577-613spaLICENCIA DE USO: Los documentos a texto completo incluidos en Dialnet son de acceso libre y propiedad de sus autores y/o editores. Por tanto, cualquier acto de reproducción, distribución, comunicación pública y/o transformación total o parcial requiere el consentimiento expreso y escrito de aquéllos. Cualquier enlace al texto completo de estos documentos deberá hacerse a través de la URL oficial de éstos en Dialnet. Más información: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI | INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS STATEMENT: Full text documents hosted by Dialnet are protected by copyright and/or related rights. This digital object is accessible without charge, but its use is subject to the licensing conditions set by its authors or editors. Unless expressly stated otherwise in the licensing conditions, you are free to linking, browsing, printing and making a copy for your own personal purposes. All other acts of reproduction and communication to the public are subject to the licensing conditions expressed by editors and authors and require consent from them. Any link to this document should be made using its official URL in Dialnet. More info: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI
|