Obst was European Director of Public Relations for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). His contract of employment included Church membership as a requirement, a ‘good behaviour’ clause and the sanction of dismissal on loss of membership. Schüth was a Roman Catholic parish and deanery musician whose terms of employment included the provision that a serious breach of ecclesiastical principles would be good reason for dismissal without notice. Both had extramarital affairs and were dismissed from their respective posts. In June 1985 the Federal Constitutional Court had determined that the Churches could require their employees to maintain the teachings and basic obligations applicable to any of their members and much of the argument turned on the margin of appreciation to be afforded in respect of rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (respect for private and family life). The Court concluded that in Obst the domestic courts had conducted a detailed and proper balancing exercise between Obst's rights under Article 8 and the right of the LDS to require a duty of loyalty from its employees and there had been no violation. In Schüth, however, the domestic courts had failed to balance the conflicting rights in a manner consistent with the Convention and there had therefore been a violation of Article 8. The difference between the two cases seems to rest on the relative positions of the applicants: the Court presumably felt that Obst had a far higher profile within the LDS than had Schüth within the Roman Catholic Church. [Frank Cranmer]
A Comment on this case will appear in the next issue of the Journal.
