<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<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/10.59704/4787729b5dfa50b0</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://verfassungsblog.de/religiously-sensitive-union-law-fr-pluralism/</dc:identifier>
  <dc:title>Religiously Sensitive Union Law in Fundamental-Rights Pluralism - Egenberger Strengthens Both: Corporate Religious Self-determination and EU Law</dc:title>
  <dc:creator>Heinig, Hans Michael</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Schorkopf, Frank</dc:creator>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:date>2026-01-12</dc:date>
  <dc:type>electronic resource</dc:type>
  <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
  <dc:subject>ddc:342</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Deutschland (Bundesrepublik). Bundesverfassungsgericht | Karlsruhe</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>EU</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>EU</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Egenberger</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>FCC</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Germany</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Pluralism</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>fundamental rights</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>religious freedom</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Deutschland (Bundesrepublik). Bundesverfassungsgericht | Karlsruhe</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>EU</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>“Doomsday” did not occur. The ghastly fascination with this legal conflict, shared by some observers in the media and in legal scholarship, has not been given new fuel. With its long-awaited order in the Egenberger case, the German Federal Constitutional Court has delivered a prudent and balanced decision. It has neither musealized ecclesiastical labour law and abandoned its established case law, nor initiated a trial of strength with the Court of Justice of the European Union by denying the primacy of Union law.</dc:description>
</dc>
