Lautsi v. Italy
   HOME

TheInfoList



OR:

''Lautsi v. Italy'' was a case brought before the
European Court of Human Rights The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR or ECtHR), also known as the Strasbourg Court, is an international court of the Council of Europe which interprets the European Convention on Human Rights. The court hears applications alleging that ...
, which, on 18 March 2011, ruled that the requirement in Italian law that
crucifixes A crucifix (from Latin ''cruci fixus'' meaning "(one) fixed to a cross") is a cross with an image of Jesus on it, as distinct from a bare cross. The representation of Jesus himself on the cross is referred to in English as the ''corpus'' (Lati ...
be displayed in classrooms of schools does not violate the
European Convention on Human Rights The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR; formally the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by ...
.Full text of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
/ref>


The case

The case stemmed from a request of Mrs Soile Lautsi, a Finnish-born Italian national, against the School Council of a school in
Abano Terme Abano Terme (known as Abano Bagni until 1924) is a town and ''comune'' in the Province of Padua, in the Veneto region, Italy, on the eastern slope of the Euganean Hills; it is southwest by rail from Padua. Abano Terme's population is 19,062 (20 ...
(
province of Padua The Province of Padua (''Provincia di Padova'') is a province in the Veneto region of Italy. Its capital is the city of Padua. Geography It has an area of 2,142 km2, and a total population of 936,492 (2016) making it the most populated pr ...
). When the School Council decided not to comply, Lautsi applied to the Veneto Administrative Court. The administrative Court decided, on 17 March 2005, that the presence of crucifixes in State-school classrooms did not offend the principle of secularism. Lautsi appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Veneto Court's decision reasoning that in Italy the crucifix symbolized the religious origin of values (tolerance, mutual respect, valorization of the person, affirmation of one's rights, consideration for one's freedom, the autonomy of one's moral conscience vis-à-vis authority, human solidarity and the refusal of any form of discrimination) which characterized Italian civilization and that keeping the Crucifix did not have any religious connotations.Case of Lautsi and Others v. Italy, European Court of Human Rights (Application No. 30814/06) www.echr.coe.int/echr/resources/hudoc/lautsi_and_others_v__italy.pdf


European Court of Human Rights

Lautsi then appealed to the
European Court of Human Rights The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR or ECtHR), also known as the Strasbourg Court, is an international court of the Council of Europe which interprets the European Convention on Human Rights. The court hears applications alleging that ...
on 27 July 2006. On 3 November 2009, a Chamber of the Second Section of the Court declared that there had been a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. This decision caused uproar in Italy. Lautsi declared that she had received threats and had been a victim of vandalism, and complained about statements by politicians. The Chamber that considered the case decided that Italy was in violation of Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Article 2 of the first Protocol to the Convention, reasoning that among the plurality of meanings the crucifix might have, the religious meaning was predominant. The Chamber argued that the "negative" freedom of religion was not limited to the absence of religious services or religious education: it extended to practices and symbols expressing, in particular or in general, a belief, a religion or atheism. It added that this "negative right" deserved special protection if it was the State, through public schools, which expressed a belief, thus placing dissenters in a situation from which they could not extract themselves except by making disproportionate efforts and sacrifices. Conversely, the Court disputed the claim by the Italian state that the display in state schools of symbols associated with Catholicism served the value of pluralism.


Italian Government reaction

On 28 January 2010, the Italian government lodged an appeal to the Grand Chamber of the Court. Its position was supported by the governments of Lithuania,
Slovakia Slovakia (; sk, Slovensko ), officially the Slovak Republic ( sk, Slovenská republika, links=no ), is a landlocked country in Central Europe. It is bordered by Poland to the north, Ukraine to the east, Hungary to the south, Austria to the s ...
and
Poland Poland, officially the Republic of Poland, is a country in Central Europe. It is divided into 16 administrative provinces called voivodeships, covering an area of . Poland has a population of over 38 million and is the fifth-most populou ...
; Lithuania's spokesperson stated that "Lithuania's Ministry of Foreign Affairs holds that the use of crucifixes in public in Catholic countries reflects the European Christian tradition and should not be regarded as a restriction on the freedom of religion". By July 2010, twenty countries had officially expressed their support for Italy's appeal against the ruling. The decision of the Chamber of the Court was also deplored by the Orthodox Church of Greece.


European Parliament

In the
European Parliament The European Parliament (EP) is one of the legislative bodies of the European Union and one of its seven institutions. Together with the Council of the European Union (known as the Council and informally as the Council of Ministers), it adopts ...
, two motions for resolutions were proposed: one by S&D group, calling for "recognition of ... the freedom of Member States to exhibit any religious symbol in public", and another by the GUE/NGL and Greens/EFA groups stating their belief that "only states based on the principle of the
separation of church and state The separation of church and state is a philosophical and jurisprudential concept for defining political distance in the relationship between religious organizations and the state. Conceptually, the term refers to the creation of a secular sta ...
– as opposed to theocratic states – can find the proper solutions to safeguard everybody's right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the right to education and the prohibition of discrimination" and "it should not be compulsory to display religious symbols in premises used by public authorities".


ECHR 2010 ruling

In March 2010, the case was referred to Court's Grand Chamber. Ten countries, 33 MEPs (jointly) and several NGOs were authorised as third parties to present written observations, several others were refused. On 30 June 2010, a hearing was held by the Grand Chamber, which on 18 March 2011 announced its decision, reached by 15 votes to 2, to overturn the ruling of the lower Chamber. It granted that, "by prescribing the presence of crucifixes in State-schools classrooms – a sign which, whether or not it is accorded in addition a secular symbolic value, undoubtedly refers to Christianity – the regulations confer on the country's majority religion preponderant visibility in the school environment." But it declared: "That is not in itself sufficient, however, to denote a process of indoctrination on the respondent State's part and establish a breach of the requirements of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1". It added that "a crucifix on a wall is an essentially passive symbol and ... cannot be deemed to have an influence on pupils comparable to that of didactic speech or participation in religious activities". According to F. Dimichina: "Religious freedom can be assumed as a human right, although its protection varies all over the world. The affaire Lautsi seems to demonstrate that human rights can be considered universal, even though the crucifix can stay in Italian classrooms".


See also

*
CNCD Decision 323/2006 CNCD Decision 323/2006 is a decision of Romania's National Council for Combating Discrimination (CNCD) regarding the display of religious symbols in public schools. The decision was brought to the CNCD by Emil Moise, a teacher and parent from Buză ...
(similar case in Romania)
BGE 116 Ia 252
(similar case in Switzerland, but the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland came to a different conclusion from that of the ECtHR)


References


External links


ECHR Chamber judgment
2009,
Request by the Italian government to refer the case to the Grand ChamberLautsi v. Italy: Religious Symbols and Parents’ Rights at the ECHRIrish Reactions to Lautsi v Italy/ Analysis of the Lautsi case by Gregor Puppinck of the ECLJLautsi v. Italy — a lost opportunity
European Humanist Federation The European Humanist Federation (EHF, french: Fédération Humaniste Européenne, FHE), officially abbreviated as EHF-FHE, is an umbrella of more than 60 humanist and secularist organisations from 25 European countries. Founded in Prague in July ...
, 2011
Why 20 Nations are defending the CrucifixCollection of statements in support of both sides and scholarly articlesPress release on the Grand Chamber judgment
*Vatican's comments on the GC judgmen

{cbignore, bot=medic European Court of Human Rights cases decided by the Grand Chamber Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights cases involving Italy Separation of church and state Politics of Europe Religion and education Christianity and children Secularism 2011 in case law 2011 in Italy 2011 in education 2011 in religion