Lautsi c. italy

The case

The case stemmed from a request of Mrs Soile Lautsi, citizen of Finland and of Italy , against the School Council of a school in Abano Terme ( province of Padua). When the School Council decides to comply, Lautsi applied to the Veneto Administrative Court. The administrative court decided, on March 17, 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 upholds the Veneto Court’s decision reasoning that in Italy the crucifix symbolizes the religious origin of values ​​(tolerance, mutual respect, valuation of the person, affirmation of one’s rights, consideration for one’s freedom, the autonomy of one’s moral conscience vis- with respect to authority, human solidarity and the refusal of any form of discrimination).  ^[4]

European Court of Human Rights

Lautsi then appealed to the European Court of Human Rights 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.  ^[5]  Lautsi proclaimed that it had received threats and had been victim of vandalism, and complained about statements by politicians.  ^[6] The Chamber is considered to be one of the most important of the Convention to the Convention, the reasoning behind the plurality of meanings of the crucifix might . The Chamber argued that ‚the‘ negative ‚freedom of religion is not limited to the absence of religious or religious education, but it does not apply to religion. It added that this „negative right“ deserved special protection if it was the State of the United States, which was placed in a situation where it was not possible to make disproportionate efforts and sacrifices.  ^[4]

Italian Government reaction

On 28 January 2010, the Italian government lodged an appeal to the Grand Chamber of the Court.  ^[1]  Its position Was supported by the gouvernements of Lithuania , Slovakia and Poland : „Lithuania’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs holds que le use of crucifixes in public in Catholic countries Reflects the European Christian tradition and shoulds not Be Regarded as a restriction on the freedom of religion „, stated its spokesperson  ^[7]  By July 2010, the United States of America.  ^[8]

The decision of the Chamber of the Court was also deplored by the Orthodox Church of Greece .  ^[9]

European Parliament

In the European Parliament , two motions for resolutions have been proposed: one by S & D group , calling for „recognition of […] the freedom of the member states“,  ^[10]  another by GUE / NGL and Greens / EFA groups, stating belief that „only states based on the principle of the separation of church and state – as opposed to the states – can find the proper solutions to the world of conscience and religion, the right to It should not be compulsory to discriminate against children and adults “  ^[11]

ECHR 2010 ruling

In March 2010, the case was referred to Court’s Grand Chamber.  ^[12]  Ten countries, 33 MEPs (conjointly) and several NGOs were authored as third parties to present written observations,  ^[13]  several others were refused.  ^[14]  On 30 June 2010, a hearing was held by the Grand Chamber,  ^[15] 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 granted in addition to 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 sufficient in itself, 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 [… ^[16]

See also

• CNCD Decision 323/2006 (similar case in Romania)

References