Summary

Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that objections to vaccination based on concerns regarding its effectiveness, risks, or public-health justifications do not constitute “beliefs” protected against discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. A national measure requiring COVID-19 vaccination exclusively for military personnel does not amount to discrimination prohibited by the Directive where the difference in treatment is based on professional status rather than on an exhaustively listed protected ground. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is not applicable where the national legislation at issue does not constitute implementation of EU law.

Questions

1. Must Directive 2000/78 be interpreted as precluding national legislation requiring COVID-19 vaccination exclusively for military personnel, where civilian employees working in the same environment are not subject to the same obligation?
2. Must Directive 2000/78 be interpreted as meaning that objections to vaccination based on concerns regarding the effectiveness, risks, or public-health justification of a vaccine constitute “beliefs” protected against discrimination on grounds of religion or belief?

Ruling 

1. Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation requiring COVID-19 vaccination exclusively for military personnel. A difference in treatment based on membership of the armed forces, as opposed to civilian employment status, is based on professional category and not on one of the protected grounds exhaustively listed in the Directive.
2. Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that objections to vaccination based on views concerning public-health policy, scientific evidence, or the effectiveness and risks of vaccines constitute personal opinions and do not amount to “beliefs” within the meaning of that Directive. Consequently, such objections do not fall within the protection against discrimination on grounds of religion or belief.