Case C-414/16. Religious discrimination

Is Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC to be interpreted as meaning that an employer, such as the defendant in the present case, or the church on its behalf, may itself authoritatively determine whether adherence by an applicant to a specified religion, by reason of the nature of the activities or of the context in which they are carried out, constitutes a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the employer/church’s ethos?If the first question is answered in the negative:In a case such as the present one, is it necessary to disapply a provision of national law – such as, in the case at hand, the first alternative of paragraph 9(1) of the General Law on Equal Treatment (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz, the ‘AGG’) – which provides that a difference in treatment on grounds of religion in the context of employment with religious bodies and organisations adhering to them is lawful where adherence to a specific religion, in accordance with the self-conception of the religious body, having regard to its right of self-determination, constitutes a justified occupational requirement?If the first question is answered in the negative, further:What requirements are there as regards the nature of the activities or of the context in which they are carried out, as genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirements, having regard to the organisation’s ethos, in accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC?