The EUCJ Ruling in Katholische Schwangerschaftsberatung v. JB and Its Impact on Ecclesiastical Labor Law in Germany

Judith Hahn is Professor of Canon Law at the University of Bonn and McDonald Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University.

On 17 March 2026, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) issued a judgment regarding Catholic institutions in Germany and their employment relationships, in Katholische Schwangerschaftsberatung v. JB. The ruling established that a Catholic employer, in this case a pregnancy counseling office at Caritas, cannot terminate a contract of employment solely on the basis of the employee’s leaving the Catholic Church. The Court determined that such a dismissal constitutes unequal treatment, unless the employee’s church membership is a genuine, legitimate, and necessary requirement for the specific occupation. While acknowledging the right of churches to self-determination in employment matters, the CJEU determined the dismissal to be unlawful, as the employer did not generally require staff to be Catholic and had employed non-Catholics in similar roles.

(more…)

Continue Reading The EUCJ Ruling in Katholische Schwangerschaftsberatung v. JB and Its Impact on Ecclesiastical Labor Law in Germany

Liberal and Post-liberal Religious Freedom in Church Employment: An Appraisal of the Strasbourg’s Case Law

Matteo Corsalini is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Siena (Italy), Department of Social, Political and Cognitive Sciences. This post is based on a presentation given at the ICLRS 32nd Annual International Law and Religion Symposium, 6 October 2025.

In its first, 1993 decision on freedom of religion or belief (FoRB), Kokkinakis v. Greece, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) famously held that FoRB is “one of the most vital elements that go to make up the identity of believers and their conception of life” (para. 31). The Court further clarified that, beyond protecting traditionally religious concerns, FoRB is also “a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, skeptics and the unconcerned” and thus overall a “matter of individual conscience” (para. 31). By employing such phrasing, the ECtHR appeared to ground the rationale for FoRB protection in wider concerns of individual self-determination—including through adherence to multiple, and at times unconventional, religions, or even to none. In this sense the ECtHR may be said to have developed a “generally liberal approach”[1] to FoRB—an orientation that the Court has repeatedly exhibited since Kokkinakis. Building on this precedent, the Court has in fact underscored the primacy of individual self-expression in religious matters, clarifying that FoRB protection should also cover religiously inspired practices that are not explicitly mandated by religious authorities and official dogma (see Eweida & Others v. UK, para. 81). In other words, what matters for the protection of idiosyncratic religious practices—the Court has clarified—is assessing whether they attain a certain level of “cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance” for the individual believer only (see Bayatyan v. Armenia, para. 110).

(more…)

Continue Reading Liberal and Post-liberal Religious Freedom in Church Employment: An Appraisal of the Strasbourg’s Case Law

The European “Cycle” of Neutrality

Matteo Corsalini is postdoctoral researcher at the University of Siena, Department of Social, Political and Cognitive Sciences.

Concepts of Neutrality in European Law

In liberal Western democracies, one possible reading of the principle of “neutrality” vis-à-vis religions is that states should encourage the flourishing of all co-existing faith- and belief-based systems that inhabit the public sphere. While this paradigm embodies an “ideal type of inclusive secularism,”[1] managing religious diversity under an egalitarian conception of neutrality does not mean that civic authorities must treat all groups seeking a place and a voice within the state with absolute impartiality.

(more…)

Continue Reading The European “Cycle” of Neutrality