The article looks at the outcome of the two legal proceedings in the Schüth and IR cases. In both cases employees of the Catholic Church – a choirmaster and organist in a Catholic parish and a trained physician working as Head of the Internal Medicine Department of a Catholic hospital - were dismissed because of the violation of the Basic Regulations on Employment Relationships in the Service of the Church. In the Schüth case Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to private and family life, had been violated. In the IR case the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation were applicable. The dismissal in IR was held to be unequal treatment in employment. But the outcome of both cases was very different. We find that Union law and in particular Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union makes all the difference. In the Schüth case, the employment relationship was terminated and the claimant’s only consolation was a claim for damages from the State. In the IR case, on the other hand, the termination was declared invalid and the employment relationship continued, i.e. the head physician did not lose his job. The comparison of the cases demonstrates that European law, backed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, has not only permeated procedural law, it has also led to an increase in judicial reviews of substantive law which in the application of Union law is a far cry from a mere plausibility review.

中文翻译：

---

有效执行欧盟劳动法：一个比较示例

本文着眼于Schüth和IR案件的两个法律程序的结果。在这两种情况下，天主教教会的雇员（天主教堂的合唱团长和风琴师，以及天主教医院内科主任的训练有素的医生）均被解雇，原因是该部门违反了《雇佣关系基本规定》。教堂。在Schüth案中，侵犯了保护私人和家庭生活权的《欧洲人权公约》（ECHR）第8条。在投资者关系案件中，适用《欧洲联盟基本权利宪章》和建立就业和职业平等待遇总框架的指令。IR被解雇被认为是就业中的不平等待遇。但是，这两种情况的结果都大相径庭。我们发现，欧盟法律，尤其是《欧洲联盟基本权利宪章》第四十七条，使一切都不同。在Schüth案中，雇佣关系被终止，索赔人唯一的安慰就是要求国家赔偿。另一方面，在IR案件中，解雇被宣布为无效，并且雇佣关系继续存在，即主治医师没有丢掉工作。案例的比较表明，以《欧洲联盟基本权利宪章》第47条为后盾的欧洲法律不仅渗透到了程序法中，而且还导致对实体法的司法审查有所增加，在适用时联盟法与仅进行合理性审查相差甚远。我们发现，欧盟法律，尤其是《欧洲联盟基本权利宪章》第四十七条，使一切都不同。在Schüth案中，雇佣关系被终止，索赔人唯一的安慰就是要求国家赔偿。另一方面，在IR案件中，解雇被宣布为无效，并且雇佣关系继续存在，即主治医师没有失去工作。案例的比较表明，以《欧洲联盟基本权利宪章》第四十七条为后盾的欧洲法律不仅渗透到了程序法中，而且还导致对实体法的司法审查有所增加，在适用时，联盟法与仅进行合理性审查相差甚远。我们发现，欧盟法律，尤其是《欧洲联盟基本权利宪章》第四十七条，使一切都不同。在Schüth案中，雇佣关系被终止，索赔人唯一的安慰就是要求国家赔偿。另一方面，在IR案件中，解雇被宣布为无效，并且雇佣关系继续存在，即主治医师没有丢掉工作。案例的比较表明，以《欧洲联盟基本权利宪章》第47条为后盾的欧洲法律不仅渗透到了程序法中，而且还导致对实体法的司法审查有所增加，在适用时联盟法与仅进行合理性审查相差甚远。