Religious organizations which operate hospitals, kindergartens and other institutions are important employers. This is particularly the case in Germany, where institutions related to Christian groups, including the united evangelical regional churches and the Catholic church are the second most important employer after the public sector.
At the same time is there a sense of increased secularization. This can lead to situations in which employees, while willingly employed by a religiously motivated organization, openly defy key rules of this religious group, e. g. when it comes to issues such as divorce or homosexuality.
In the last years, a number of cases have made it through the court system in Germany and eventually to the European Court of Human Rights. By looking at some of these cases and the wider case law of that Court, this article is aimed at providing the reader with an overview over the topic but also with an answer to the question how the European Convention on Human Rights, which allows for a wide range of legal models concerning the relationship between the state and organized religions.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Community and Loyalty
3 Valid Employer Expectations of Employee Loyalty
4 Private Life vs. Freedom of Religion?
5 Concluding remarks
6 Literature
Objectives and Topics
This article examines the legal tension between the collective freedom of religion of religious organizations and the individual rights of their employees within the German labor market, particularly through the lens of European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence.
- The role of religious organizations as major employers in Germany.
- The concept of "duty of loyalty" in religiously motivated employment relationships.
- The reconciliation of individual privacy and secular lifestyles with religious organizational ethos.
- The European Court of Human Rights' interpretation of Article 9 ECHR in collective vs. individual rights disputes.
- The limits of State intervention in the internal organization of religious communities.
Excerpt from the Book
Valid Employer Expectations of Employee Loyalty
In Siebenhaar v. Germany as well as in Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria, the Court emphasized that, with the exception of extreme cases, the state is to refrain from labelling freedom of religion as legal or illegal. As religions are often organized in some collective form, this has to include a minimum level of respect for the collective freedom of religion enjoyed by such groups. While this does not mean that freedom of religion per se overrides human rights of others, the particular constellation in case of a work relationship into which the individual had entered voluntarily has to be taken into account as well. After all, the employee has not been forced to choose a religiously motivated employer. In both Siebenhaar v. Germany and Ahtinen v. Finland, the European Court of Human Rights held that the respective applicants had been aware (or at least should have been aware) of the expectation that is created with their employer by their signing a work contract with a religious institution.
This view reflects a fundamental respect for religious organisations – but at the same time does not place them completely outside the legal system, as might be claimed by those who are opposed to a legal protection of religions as groups. Instead, religious organisations are taken seriously by the state in so far as their ability to regulate their internal affairs is protected. Here we see a remnant of the ‘sovereignty’ (if one accepts a very wide understanding of the term) of the original Christian church which dates back to the time before Christianity had become the official religion of the Roman Empire.
Chapter Summaries
1 Introduction: Provides an overview of the religious landscape in Europe and the constitutional recognition of the collective dimension of freedom of religion in Germany.
2 Community and Loyalty: Analyzes how the European Court of Human Rights balances the collective rights of religious communities with the contractual duties of their employees.
3 Valid Employer Expectations of Employee Loyalty: Explores the extent to which religious employers may impose loyalty requirements on employees and the limits of this expectation regarding private life.
4 Private Life vs. Freedom of Religion?: Examines the legal conflict between individual rights to privacy and the collective right of religious groups to exercise freedom of religion on behalf of their adherents.
5 Concluding remarks: Concludes that pluralism in a democratic society requires balancing conflicting human rights, while maintaining judicial protection for religious communities.
6 Literature: Lists the academic and legal references used throughout the article.
Keywords
religion, church, human rights, freedom of religion, collective rights, European Convention on Human Rights, morals, labor law, employment, secularization, loyalty, organizational autonomy, jurisprudence, Schüth v. Germany, Siebenhaar v. Germany
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this legal study?
The work focuses on the legal relationship between religiously affiliated employers in Germany and their employees, specifically regarding the "duty of loyalty" in the context of human rights law.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The study covers the collective freedom of religion, German labor law, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, and the tension between individual private life and religious organizational ethos.
What is the core research question?
The article seeks to determine how the European Convention on Human Rights evaluates the German legal practice that permits religious organizations to hold employees to higher standards of conduct than secular employers.
Which methodology is utilized in this study?
The author uses a legal-analytical approach, reviewing specific case law from the European Court of Human Rights and German constitutional law to evaluate how these systems balance competing human rights.
What does the main body of the text address?
It discusses the "duty of loyalty" as a contractual requirement, the autonomy of religious groups under Article 9 ECHR, and the necessity of state neutrality in religious internal disputes.
Which keywords characterize the work?
The key concepts include collective vs. individual rights, religious freedom, labor law, duty of loyalty, and the European Convention on Human Rights.
How does the Court view the duty of loyalty in employment contracts?
The Court acknowledges that employees may accept restrictions on their private rights by signing contracts with religious entities, provided these are voluntary, though such duties have limits.
Does the right to organize internal affairs allow religious groups to ignore other human rights?
No, the Court clarifies that while the autonomous existence of religious communities is protected, it does not mean that the freedom of religion automatically overrides all other human rights of individuals.
What role do national authorities play according to the author?
The author argues that national authorities serve as the primary protectors of human rights and are responsible for balancing conflicting claims between individuals and the collective within their jurisdictions.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Dr. Stefan Kirchner (Autor:in), 2015, Collective versus Individual Rights. The Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights in the German Religious Labour Law Cases, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/300808
