Lautsi v. Italy
Encyclopedia
Lautsi v. Italy was a case brought before the European Court of Human Rights
, which, on 18 March 2011, ruled that the requirement in Italian law that crucifixes be displayed in classrooms of state schools does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights
.
and of Italy
, against the School Council of a school in Abano Terme
(province of Padua
). When the School Council decided not to comply, Mrs. 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. Ms Soile Lautsi appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Veneto Court’s decision reasoning that 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.
Mrs. 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. Mrs 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 which expressed a belief and dissenters were placed in a situation from which they could not extract themselves if not by making disproportionate efforts and sacrifices.'
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
and Poland
: “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”, stated its spokeperson 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 deplored also by the Orthodox
Church of Greece
.
In the European Parliament, 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", 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 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"
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".
European Court of Human Rights
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is a supra-national court established by the European Convention on Human Rights and hears complaints that a contracting state has violated the human rights enshrined in the Convention and its protocols. Complaints can be brought by individuals or...
, which, on 18 March 2011, ruled that the requirement in Italian law that crucifixes be displayed in classrooms of state schools does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights
European Convention on Human Rights
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953...
.
The case
The case stemmed from a request of Mrs. Soile Lautsi, citizen of FinlandFinland
Finland , officially the Republic of Finland, is a Nordic country situated in the Fennoscandian region of Northern Europe. It is bordered by Sweden in the west, Norway in the north and Russia in the east, while Estonia lies to its south across the Gulf of Finland.Around 5.4 million people reside...
and of Italy
Italy
Italy , officially the Italian Republic languages]] under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. In each of these, Italy's official name is as follows:;;;;;;;;), is a unitary parliamentary republic in South-Central Europe. To the north it borders France, Switzerland, Austria and...
, against the School Council of a school in Abano Terme
Abano Terme
Abano Terme is a town and comune in the province of Padua, in the Veneto region, Italy, on the eastern slope of the Colli Euganei; it is 10 kilometers southwest by rail from Padua. Abano Terme's population is 19,062 .The town's hot springs and mud baths are the main economic resource...
(province of Padua
Province of Padua
The Province of Padua is a province in the Veneto region of Italy. Its capital is the city of Padua.-History and territory:...
). When the School Council decided not to comply, Mrs. 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. Ms Soile Lautsi appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Veneto Court’s decision reasoning that 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.
Mrs. Lautsi then appealed to the European Court of Human Rights
European Court of Human Rights
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is a supra-national court established by the European Convention on Human Rights and hears complaints that a contracting state has violated the human rights enshrined in the Convention and its protocols. Complaints can be brought by individuals or...
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. Mrs 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 which expressed a belief and dissenters were placed in a situation from which they could not extract themselves if not by making disproportionate efforts and sacrifices.'
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
Lithuania
Lithuania , officially the Republic of Lithuania is a country in Northern Europe, the biggest of the three Baltic states. It is situated along the southeastern shore of the Baltic Sea, whereby to the west lie Sweden and Denmark...
, Slovakia
Slovakia
The Slovak Republic is a landlocked state in Central Europe. It has a population of over five million and an area of about . Slovakia is bordered by the Czech Republic and Austria to the west, Poland to the north, Ukraine to the east and Hungary to the south...
and Poland
Poland
Poland , officially the Republic of Poland , is a country in Central Europe bordered by Germany to the west; the Czech Republic and Slovakia to the south; Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania to the east; and the Baltic Sea and Kaliningrad Oblast, a Russian exclave, to the north...
: “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”, stated its spokeperson 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 deplored also by the Orthodox
Eastern Orthodox Church
The Orthodox Church, officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church and commonly referred to as the Eastern Orthodox Church, is the second largest Christian denomination in the world, with an estimated 300 million adherents mainly in the countries of Belarus, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Georgia, Greece,...
Church of Greece
Church of Greece
The Church of Greece , part of the wider Greek Orthodox Church, is one of the autocephalous churches which make up the communion of Orthodox Christianity...
.
In the European Parliament, 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", 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 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"
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".
External links
- ECHR Chamber judgment, 2009
- Request by the Italian government to refer the case to the Grand Chamber
- Lautsi v. Italy: Religious Symbols and Parents’ Rights at the ECHR
- ECHR BLOG
- Irish Reactions to Lautsi v Italy
- Lautsi v. Italy — a lost opportunity European Humanist FederationEuropean Humanist FederationThe European Humanist Federation-Fédération Humaniste Européenne is an international association that federates numerous European humanist associations. It also has individual members. The members of its administrative board are elected for three-year terms by the general assembly of the member...
, 2011 - Why 20 Nations are defending the Crucifix
- Collection of statements in support of both sides and scholarly articles
- Press release on the Grand Chamber judgment
- Vatican's comments on the GC judgment (excerpts translated)