The question of time off for religious holidays raised its head again in Cresco Investigations v Achatzi. The facts though did not involve the previously considered, but thorny, question of whether it would be indirectly discriminatory to deny a religious employee time off to perform religious activities but whether it was directly discriminatory for legislation to provide an extra day of leave, or double pay if the employee worked on that day, for members of particular religious communities only. The answer to this, perhaps not surprisingly, was that to do so was discriminatory, and could not be defended on the basis that it protected the rights and freedoms of others. Given the law’s clear privileging of some religious groups above others for little objective reason it is hard to see what other conclusion the court could have reached given that what was at stake was not merely a day off but extra payment if an employee chose to work that day. Nevertheless, this case is important because it raised technical but potentially extremely far ranging questions on the horizontal direct effect of Directives and the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.

中文翻译：

---

非宗教人士的宗教假期？Cresco Investigations v Achatzi

在 Cresco Investigations v Achatzi 案中，宗教节日休假问题再次引起人们的注意。事实虽然不涉及先前考虑的但棘手的问题，即拒绝宗教雇员休假从事宗教活动是否会间接歧视，但立法提供额外一天的假期或双倍假期是否会直接歧视如果员工在当天工作，则支付仅适用于特定宗教团体的成员。对此的答案或许并不令人意外，那就是这样做是歧视性的，不能以保护他人的权利和自由为由为其辩护。鉴于法律明确将某些宗教团体置于其他宗教团体之上，几乎没有客观原因，因此很难看出法院还能得出什么其他结论，因为所涉的不仅仅是休息日，而是如果员工选择工作的额外报酬日。然而，这个案例很重要，因为它提出了关于指令和基本权利和自由宪章的横向直接影响的技术性但可能非常广泛的问题。