October 30

LAUTSI V.
ITALY 2011
European Court of Human Rights Presented by

(Application no. 30814/06) Yoshita Sood

 THE CORE QUESTION

Whether the display of crucifixes in classrooms was

contrary to the claimants’ negative religious freedoms
and the principle of state neutrality, as expressed in art.
9 of the ECHR read with art 2. of Protocol 1 of the
Convention
 • The applicants, Ms Lautsi (Soile Lautsi, a Finnish-born Italian
FACTS national) and her two children, objected to the display of a
crucifix in the classrooms of the childrens’ State school.
• The dispute originated at a school governors’ meeting in 2002,
where Ms Lautsi’s husband asked for the crucifixes to be
removed.
• The governors declined this request.
• This decision was contested and subsequently affirmed in the
Administrative Court, the Constitutional Court and the
Supreme Administrative Court.
• Eventually, the applicants brought a case against the Italian
Government in the ECHR.
 LEGAL BASIS FOR THE DISPLAY OF
CRUCIFIXES IN THE CLASSROOM

Two royal decrees of 1924 and 1928

(the idea was to reflect the long historical tradition in Italy of displaying
crucifixes as a symbol of tolerance and the values enshrined in the
Christian tradition)
 ARTICLE 9
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this
right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either
alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his
religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such

limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society
in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or
morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
ARTICLE 2 OF FIRST PROTOCOL

Right to education

No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of

any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to
teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such
education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and
philosophical convictions.
APPLICANT’S
ARGUMENTS
• Displaying crucifixes in state school classrooms
infringes on freedom of thought and
conscience, undermines educational pluralism,
and represents the state's religious preference.
• It hinders critical judgment and an open,
pluralistic education.
• Impedes the first applicant's right to educate her
children in line with her secular beliefs.
APPLICANT’S
The crucifix is an undeniably religious symbol
ARGUMENTS and its display:
• is an illegitimate interference with their rights
under the Convention;
• infringes the principle of educational pluralism
by expressing a preference for a particular
religion;
• inhibits the development of critical judgment;
and
• disregards the State’s obligation to protect
minors against indoctrination.
ITALY’S ARGUMENTS

• the crucifix is not only a religious symbol but also a

“cultural and identity-linked symbol, the symbol of
principles and values which formed the basis of
democracy and western civilisation.”
• the crucifix is a passive symbol incapable of influencing
students merely by its presence;
• since there was no European consensus on the issue, the
States have a “wide margin of appreciation” that should
be respected by the ECHR;
ITALY’S ARGUMENTS

• the display of a crucifix is consistent with neutrality as it

is the expression of one religion alongside others.
• the Government cited examples of its neutral approach
to religion such as allowing students to wear headscarfs,
other religious apparel and symbols; and
• permitting the presence of a crucifix protects the
prevailing popular feeling.
 CHAMBER OF THE SECOND SECTION OF THE
COURT
• Italy violated Articles 9 and 2 of the First Protocol due to the
crucifix's predominantly religious meaning.
• "Negative" freedom of religion extended to symbols and
practices, especially when the state promoted a belief through
public schools.
• It stressed that the state should avoid indirectly imposing beliefs
in settings where people are dependent or vulnerable.
GRAND CHAMBER OF THE COURT
• The case held significance for countries with state churches or religious
focus and the Grand Chamber considered numerous objections from states
and individuals involved.
• 33 members of the European Parliament stressed the principle of
subsidiarity in parents' rights under Article 2 of the First Protocol to the
ECHR.
• Lithuania, Slovakia, and Poland supported this view, while Lithuania
argued that the use of crucifixes in Catholic countries reflected European
Christian tradition.
• By July 2010, twenty countries officially supported Italy's appeal against
the Chamber's decision.
• The Orthodox Church of Greece disapproved of the Chamber's ruling.
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights
(ECHR) overruled the Chamber's decision.

The judgment focused on three key premises:

• the scope of parents' rights under Article 2 of the First
Protocol to the Convention
• State neutrality
• The margin of appreciation granted to states under the
ECHR.
 PARENTS' RIGHTS AND STATE
OBLIGATIONS
• Article 2 of the First Protocol emphasizes the state's
responsibility to ensure the exercise of various religions and
beliefs in a neutral and impartial manner.
• The state must respect parents' rights to educate their children
according to their religious beliefs.
• However, parents cannot demand a specific form of teaching or
curriculum planning.
• The state must develop the curriculum in an objective, critical,
and pluralistic manner, free from proselytism.
 PARENTS' RIGHTS AND STATE
OBLIGATIONS
• The GC's judgment focused on the concept of neutrality in
fulfilling positive state obligations under Article 2 of the First
Protocol.
• The positive obligation is to "respect" parents' rights to
determine their children's religious education.
• The GC asserted that this obligation is met when the curriculum
is objective, critical, and pluralistic, enabling pupils to develop
a critical mindset about religion in a non-proselytizing
environment.
 THE CRUCIFIX AND ITS INFLUENCE

• The Grand Chamber emphasized that reading Article 2 of the

First Protocol alongside Article 9 of the ECHR implies that the
duty must be respected "neutrally and impartially."
• Neutrality ensures mutual tolerance between competing
religious groups and the fair and equal treatment of all.
 THE CRUCIFIX AND ITS INFLUENCE

• The Grand Chamber recognized the religious nature of the crucifix

but couldn't determine if it influenced pupils or if the applicants'
perception alone constituted a violation.
• The GC relied for its application of the margin of appreciation
doctrine on the requirement of a lack of a common European
consensus
• States have a margin of appreciation in organizing the curriculum and
school conditions while respecting parents' religious beliefs.
• There was no European consensus on religious symbols in schools,
leading to varying court opinions.
 THE CRUCIFIX AS A PASSIVE
SYMBOL

• The Grand Chamber viewed the crucifix as an essentially

passive symbol, not comparable to active religious teaching.
• The presence of crucifixes in Italian schools didn't involve
compulsory Christian education.
• Italy acknowledged and respected other religions, celebrating
events like Ramadan and avoiding proselytizing practices.
 CASES RELIED ON
• The Court relies on previous judgments, namely Folgerø and
Zengin, with necessary adaptations.
• In the Folgerø case, the Court examined "Christianity, religion,
and philosophy" lessons and found that giving Christianity
more emphasis than other religions did not amount to
indoctrination.
• The Court reasoned that the prominence of Christianity in
Norway's history and tradition fell within the state's margin of
appreciation in curriculum planning.
 CASES RELIED ON
• A similar conclusion was reached in Turkish schools regarding
"religious culture and ethics" classes, where Islam received
greater attention due to its majority status in Turkey.
• The Court emphasizes that a crucifix on a wall is essentially
passive, which is significant considering the principle of
neutrality.
• It clarifies that the crucifix doesn't have a comparable influence
on pupils as active teaching or participation in religious
activities, echoing the findings in the Folgerø and Zengin cases.
 THE ROLE OF THE ECHR

• The majority judgment emphasized that the regulation of

crucifix displays in state schools is the responsibility of
individual states, not the ECHR.
• The ECHR's role is to ensure that states do not engage in
indoctrination rather than dictating specific policies.
THE CRUCIFIX IN THE ITALIAN CONTEXT

• The presence of crucifixes in Italian state schools, while

symbolizing Christianity, did not constitute indoctrination.
• The Grand Chamber affirmed that a crucifix on a wall is
passive and doesn't have a significant impact on pupils.
• The ECHR's role is to supervise states, preventing them
from indoctrinating, rather than micromanaging cultural and
historical aspects.
 THE CRUCIFIX AND ITS INFLUENCE

The case demonstrated the universality of human rights, even

though cultural and historical contexts differ.

While the crucifix could remain in Italian classrooms, the verdict

might differ in other cultural contexts.

The Grand Chamber's judgment emphasized that active teaching of

one religion to the detriment of others could violate an individual's
religious freedom.
 MARGIN OF APPRECIATION IN POSITIVE
OBLIGATIONS
• The margin of appreciation is an integral part of the rights
outlined in the convention and its protocols.
• Positive obligations set a minimum standard to be met, and
states have a wide margin of appreciation in deciding how to
meet this standard.
• Whether a state has violated a particular right depends on
assessing if the requirements of the right regarding these
obligations are met in a specific case.
• In negative obligations, the margin determines the scope
of interpretation and limitations of rights or obligations.

• In positive obligations, it guides the choice of permissible

means to fulfill the obligation.
• The concept of positive obligations remains to be clearly
defined by the European Court of Human Rights.
• The margin of appreciation doctrine relies on the absence of a
common European consensus, which has been criticized for
introducing relativism in human rights interpretation.
• The margin does not affect the state's substantive obligation
to provide an objective, pluralistic curriculum but influences
the methods states may use to meet this obligation.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT

The Grand Chamber's stance was that neutrality

is maintained as long as the religious symbol in HOW DOES THE ACT OF
question does not influence pupils or induce
proselytism.
DISPLAYING CRUCIFIXES IN
SCHOOLS ALIGN WITH THIS?

Essentially, the Grand Chamber’s view on the matter was that

the requirement of neutrality is fulfilled as long as the religious
symbol in question does not have an influence on the pupils or
induce proselytism. This, however, reduces the notion of
neutrality or neutral to non-influential
THANK YOU FOR
LISTENING!