On 17 March 2026, the Court of Justice of the Europe­an Union, in its judgment in case C-258/24 Katholische Schwangerschaftsberatung, held that a religious organiza­tion may not terminate an employment relationship with an employee solely because they have left the Catholic Church, if at the same time it permits the employment of non-Catholics to perform identical duties. The judgment was delivered against the backdrop of a long-standing in­terpretative dispute between the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany concerning the balancing of conflicting con­stitutional values: on the one hand, employees’ right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of religion or belief, and on the other hand, the right of churches and religious organizations to self-determination, in particu­lar with regard to defining ethical principles and shaping employees’ duties of loyalty.

The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Un­ion (CJEU) of October 2024 in Air Nostrum (Case C-314/23) constitutes an important point of reference in the ongoing de­bate on the scope of protection against indirect pay discrim­ination. The Court adopted a position of a rather ambivalent nature: on the one hand, it broadened the concept of “pay” within the meaning of Directive 2006/54/EC, extending it to include daily allowances representing a lump-sum reimburse­ment of expenses incurred by workers in connection with the performance of their duties outside their usual place of work; on the other hand, it limited the application of the principle of equality to cases involving “the same work or work of equal value.” Consequently, this ruling may contribute to perpetu­ating existing pay disparities in sectors marked by a high de­gree of occupational segregation based on gender. The judg­ment highlights the need for a more progressive approach to the phenomenon of structural discrimination – one that goes beyond formal declarations of equality.

On January 14, 2025, in case C-19/23, Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou recommended that the Court of Justice of the EU annul Directive 2022/2041 on adequate minimum wages in its entirety. According to the Advocate General, the Directive was adopted ultra vires. His argument, based on a broad interpretation of the Union's competence exclusion in relation to wages (Article 153(5) TFEU), diverges from the Court's established interpretation. The aim of this paper is to present the main points of the Opinion, which raises questions about the delicate balance, developed over the years, between the EU's competences and the sovereignty of Member States in the area of social policy.

The Covid-19 pandemic shook the foundations of labour law, making it legitimate to reevaluate whether the hitherto accepted standards remain valid not only in times of crisis but also beyond. The book under review was written at the very beginning of the global pandemic. The analyses conducted in it seem, however, to be relevant not only from the point of view of the development of the pandemic reality but also from the possibility of applying the analyses presented in it to post-crisis periods.