In Lautsi v. Italy, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights by a majority of 15-2 has overturned the Chamber judgment of 2009, ruling that the presence of crucifixes in the classroom does not violate the Convention.
A mother of schoolchildren had argued that crucifixes being displayed in Italian state school classrooms breached Article 2 Protocol 1 (right to education) and Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion).
The Chamber judgment had concluded that "the compulsory display of a symbol of a particular faith in the exercise of public authority...restrict[ed] the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions and the right of schoolchildren to believe or not believe".
Various non-governmental organisations intervened, the European Centre for Law and Justice claiming that the Chamber judgment had "created a new obligation to ensure that the educational environment was entirely secular" and Interights arguing that states should ensure that teaching religion was "done in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner".
The Court accepted that member states were forbidden from pursuing an aim of indoctrination. However, they concluded that the mere presence of crucifixes in classrooms did not amount to indoctrination, being an "essentially passive symbol". In that regard they took into consideration the fact that Italian state schools permitted the wearing of Islamic headscarves; celebrated Ramadan; provided religious education in all religious creeds. It was also material that the Applicant had not alleged that the school's teaching sought to convert her children to Catholicism.
The Court noted that the presence of religious symbols in State schools was expressly forbidden only in a small number of member states. They opined that there was no European consensus on the issue and accordingly member states enjoyed a wide "margin of appreciation". This means that an international court will be slow to interfere with domestic decisions relating to matters with which the member states are more familiar. In a concurring opinion, Judge Power found that where the Chamber had erred was to equate "neutrality" with secularism, stating that "preference for secularism...is not a neutral option".
Please click here to view the press release.
Please click here to view the original chamber judgment.