G4S Secure Solutions NV is a Belgian company that provides security, guarding and reception services. Samira Achbita, a Muslim, worked as a receptionist for G4S; and after three years she insisted that she should be allowed to wear a hijab at work.  G4S prohibits employees from wearing any visible religious, political or philosophical symbols at work and, consequently, dismissed her. The Belgian Court of Cassation, before which her wrongful dismissal appeal is now pending, asked the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling clarifying the prohibition under EU law of discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief.

Though the ban may constitute indirect religious discrimination, it may be justified in order to enforce a legitimate policy of religious and ideological neutrality pursued by the employer insofar as the principle of proportionality is observed. She notes that the proportionality test is a delicate matter and that the CJEU should grant the national authorities, in particular the national courts, a measure of discretion which they may exercise in strict accordance with EU rules.

In her view, it is ultimately for the Belgian Court of Cassation to strike a fair balance between the conflicting interests, taking into account all the relevant circumstances: the size and conspicuousness of the religious symbol, the nature of Ms Achbita’s activity and the context in which she must perform her activity, as well as the national identity of Belgium. She has no doubt that, in principle, the ban at issue is appropriate for achieving  G4S’s legitimate objective of ensuring religious and ideological neutrality and necessary in order to implement company policy; and it has not been possible to identiy Iess intrusive but equally suitable alternatives for achieving the aim pursued. Nor does the ban unduly prejudice the legitimate interests of the female employees concerned and must therefore be regarded as proportionate.