<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd">
  <responseDate>2026-04-17T09:09:38Z</responseDate>
  <request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:verfassungsblog.de/59844" metadataPrefix="oai_dc">https://verfassungsblog.de/oai/repository/</request>
  <GetRecord>
    <header>
      <identifier>oai:verfassungsblog.de/59844</identifier>
      <datestamp>2021-07-20T06:21:29Z</datestamp>
      <setSpec>posts</setSpec>
    </header>
    <metadata>
      <dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20021212.xsd">
        <dc:identifier>http://dx.doi.org/10.17176/20210720-140311-0</dc:identifier>
        <dc:identifier>https://verfassungsblog.de/pride-or-prejudice/</dc:identifier>
        <dc:title>Pride or Prejudice? - The CJEU Judgment in IX v Wabe and MH Müller Handels GmbH</dc:title>
        <dc:creator>van den Brink, Martijn</dc:creator>
        <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
        <dc:date>2021-07-20</dc:date>
        <dc:type>electronic resource</dc:type>
        <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
        <dc:subject>ddc:342</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>Discrimination</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>European Charter of Fundamental Rights</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>freedom of religion</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>Neutrality</dc:subject>
        <dc:publisher>Verfassungsblog</dc:publisher>
        <dc:relation>Verfassungsblog--2366-7044</dc:relation>
        <dc:rights>CC BY-SA 4.0</dc:rights>
        <dc:description>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.</dc:description>
      </dc>
    </metadata>
  </GetRecord>
</OAI-PMH>
