Logo law and pluralism
Logo Università Bicocca

Relevant case law

A collection, sorted by years, of the most important judicial decisions concerning pluralism.

Freikirche der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten in Deutschland KdöR v. Bildungsdirektion für Vorarlberg, Case C-372/21, CJEU (Third Section), 2 February 2023

Freikirche der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten in Deutschland KdöR v. Bildungsdirektion für Vorarlberg, Case C-372/21, CJEU (Third Section), 2 February 2023

In the context of a dispute between the Freikirche der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten in Deutschland KdöR (Free Seventh-day Adventist Church in Germany) and the Bildungsdirektion für Vorarlberg (Education Directorate of Vorarlberg, Austria), concerning the denial of a grant for a private denominational educational school, the referring court requested a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Articles 17 and 56 TFEU. The core of the dispute revolved around the fact that the grant was reserved only to schools managed by Churches or religious associations recognized as legal entities by Austrian law.

The referring court asked in particular whether, in the light of Article 17 TFEU, Article 56 TFEU covers a situation where a religious association, recognized in an EU Member State, applies in another Member State for grants in the interest of a private school, which it manages and recognizes as a confessional school. With the second question, the referring court asked whether the exclusion from benefits provided for schools managed by those Churches recognized as legal entities in another Member State conflicts with EU law.

 

The Court of Justice affirmatively answered the first question. Article 17 TFEU should not have the effect of restricting the scope of EU law so as to exclude from its application a situation where a Church, an association or a religious community, enjoying the status of legal entity in a Member State, applies, in the interest of a private school, for a grant reserved for Churches, associations and religious communities recognized under the law of another Member State.

As for the second question, the Court considered inadequate the reference made by the referring court to Article 56 TFEU, with Article 49 TFEU on freedom of establishment being more appropriate. In any event, this freedom would not preclude such national legislation from being enacted. Indeed, Article 49 TFEU read in conjunction with Article 17 TFEU should not be interpreted as requiring a Member State to recognize the status enjoyed by those Churches, associations or religious communities by virtue of the law of other Member States.

 

(Comment by Andrea Cesarini)