20 January 2026
Double-Layered Horizontal Effect
In the Egenberger case, the CJEU again effectuated a directive’s content via the horizontal direct effect of EU fundamental rights. The FCC not only continues to show openness to the CJEU’s approach, but even finds that notwithstanding differences in legal construction, it can achieve equivalent substantive results via its own doctrine of indirect horizontal effect. This leads to a curious result that may be described as a “double-layered horizontal effect”: Effectuating a directive via both the horizontal direct effect of EU fundamental rights and the indirect horizontal effect of German fundamental rights. Continue reading >>
0 
16 January 2026
No Elegy for Ultra Vires
Heiko Sauer recently diagnosed a “course correction in European constitutional law”. In light of the Second Senate’s Egenberger judgment, he paints a picture of a Federal Constitutional Court returning to calmer waters after the seismic aftershocks of the PSPP judgment. As tempting as this interpretation may be – driven by a desire for a harmonious cooperative relationship between courts –, it risks equating the mere absence of open conflict with structural pacification. I would like to both add to and modify Sauer’s thesis: institutionalisation, rather than the “deflation” of review, which just reduces its effectiveness, is the solution. Continue reading >>
0
12 January 2026
Religionssensibles Unionsrecht im Grundrechtspluralismus
„Doomsday“ ist ausgefallen. Die schaurige Faszination für den Rechtskonflikt, die einige Beobachter aus Medien und Rechtswissenschaft teilen, erhält keine neue Nahrung. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat mit seinem langerwarteten Beschluss in der Sache Egenberger eine kluge und ausgewogene Entscheidung getroffen. Es hat weder das kirchliche Arbeitsrecht musealisiert und seine etablierte Rechtsprechung aufgegeben, noch eine Kraftprobe mit dem Europäischen Gerichtshof begonnen und den unionsrechtlichen Vorrang geleugnet. Continue reading >>12 January 2026
Religiously Sensitive Union Law in Fundamental-Rights Pluralism
“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. Continue reading >>
0
22 December 2025
Egenberger
The Egenberger decision is not only about church labour law, but touches on fundamental issues of national and European constitutional law. By integrating the requirements of EU law while maintaining domestic specificities, the decision provides a valuable example of how to manage different layers of fundamental rights. Nevertheless, the Egenberger decision carries an element of surprise. The FCC performed a Solange test, elaborating on the question of whether the relevant European standard falls short of the minimum standard required under German law and therefore justifies an exception to the primacy of EU law. Continue reading >>
0
22 December 2025
The Fragility of Proportionality Review
The latest decision in Egenberger illustrates both the importance of the EU framework for protecting against discrimination on the grounds of religion, and at the same time its fragility. Since the CJEU decision, two German courts have taken turns at assessing the proportionality of the Church’s refusal to employ Ms Egenberger, with different results. The fact that two courts could consider the same facts and reach opposite conclusions without either seeming to have misapplied the law shows how flexible the law can be. Continue reading >>
0
21 December 2025
Winning by Losing
Up to now, religious communities in Germany could require religious affiliation for almost all kinds of employment. Following the CJEU’s intervention, the FCC in November 2025 changed this decades-long practice and thus accorded greater constitutional weight to equality and non-discrimination vis-à-vis religious self-determination. Yet it did more than that: it also reinforced the protection of religious freedom itself. Finally, the decision affirmed the supremacy of EU law in times of fundamental challenges to the transnational rule of law. Egenberger thus constitutes a substantial, well-justified, fundamental-rights-friendly, and welcome shift. Continue reading >>
0
19 December 2025
Gekommen, um zu bleiben
Heiko Sauer hat dem BVerfG an dieser Stelle unlängst einen „Kurswechsel im Europaverfassungsrecht“ bescheinigt. So verlockend diese Deutung angesichts des Wunsches nach einem harmonischen Gerichtsverbund sein mag: Sie läuft Gefahr, die bloße Abwesenheit offenen Streits mit einer strukturellen Befriedung gleichzusetzen. Ich möchte Sauers These daher ergänzen und zugleich wenden: Nicht die Deflationierung, die der Kontrolle die Wirkungskraft entzieht, ist die Lösung, sondern ihre Institutionalisierung. Continue reading >>17 December 2025
Justifiable Caution
Religion in the workplace brings together two areas of law in which the CJEU has taken markedly different approaches. This has left the Court torn between following its assertive approach in relation to discrimination in the workplace and its deferential approach in relation to religion’s role in society. This sets wide but meaningful boundaries on Member State autonomy regarding religion’s place in their societies. While this caution has been heavily criticised, in the context of the rapid and unprecedented religious change in Europe, it is the most prudent and politically sustainable approach for the time being. Continue reading >>
0
17 December 2025
In Good Faith
Debates over the role of religion in contemporary European constitutional orders have increasingly shifted from the national to the European level, placing EU law and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice under sharper scrutiny. In our view, despite imperfections in the CJEU’s case law, the external and differentiated role of the Court and of EU law can challenge claims of self-referential sufficiency. EU law provides a mirror and necessitates a dialogue in which these convictions are tested and, where necessary, redefined. Continue reading >>
0