happen as it is noticeable that the applicant was initially successful at first instance even under the plausibility test in already being awarded some measure of compensation for breach of the General Law (at [29]). In other words, the CJEU’s ruling did not diverge as extensively from national law as it may first appear. On the other hand, there remains the possibility that constitutional accommodation may have been stretched too far. Thus, a core provision of national constitutional law has been effectively replaced by the Charter, whereas Advocate General Tanchev in Egenberger was simply not prepared to allow the horizontal application of a provision of EU law which appeared directly to contradict a provision of national constitutional law (at [119]). It is also at variance with Fernandez Martinez v Spain ((2014) 60 EHRR 35) where the European Court of Human Rights (which the CJEU cited in the case), showed much greater deference to the autonomy of religious organisations. In the end only time will tell whether Egenberger will be acclaimed or detracted but it certainly pushes the jurisprudence of the CJEU in a novel direction.

中文翻译：

---

欧盟基本权利及其执行

之所以会发生，是因为值得注意的是，即使在合理性测试下，申请人最初也已经成功地因违反普通法而获得了一定程度的赔偿（在[29]）。换句话说，欧洲法院的裁决并未像它最初出现的那样与国内法产生很大的分歧。另一方面，宪法上的适应范围可能仍然延伸得太远。因此，《宪章》已有效地替代了国家宪法的核心条款，而埃因贝格州的总督Tanchev根本不准备允许横向应用欧盟法律的条款，而该条款似乎与国家宪法的条款相抵触（在[119]）。这也与Fernandez Martinez诉西班牙（（2014）60 EHRR 35）有所不同，欧洲人权法院（欧洲法院在该案中援引该案）在很大程度上表明了对宗教组织自治的尊重。最终，只有时间会证明埃根伯格会受到赞誉还是会被贬低，但这无疑将欧洲法院的判例推向了一个新的方向。