Lautsi v Italy

The case of Lautsi v. Italy, better known as the “Crucifix Case,” is a particularly significant case. Its significance is not only political and legal, but also religious. Never before in the history of the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe has a case raised so much public attention and debate. The debate regarding the legitimacy of the symbol of Christ’s presence in Italian schools is emblematic of the cultural crisis in Western Europe regarding religion. Twenty-one State parties to the European Convention on Human Rights, in an unprecedented move, joined Italy to reassert the legitimacy of the public display of Christian symbols in European society. The Court finally recognized, in substance, that in countries of Christian tradition, Christianity enjoys a special social legitimacy that distinguishes it from other philosophical and religious belief systems. In other words, because Italy is a country of Christian tradition, Christian symbols may legitimately enjoy greater visibility in Italian society than other religious or ideological symbols.

L’affaire Lautsi contre Italie, plus connue comme affaire des crucifix, a une importance considérable. Cette importance n’est pas seulement politique et juridique, elle est aussi religieuse. Jamais encore dans l’histoire de la Cour et du Conseil de l’Europe une affaire a suscité autant d’attention et de débat public. Le débat autour de la légitimité de la présence du symbole du Christ dans les écoles italiennes est emblématique de la crise de l’identité culturelle et religieuse de l’Europe occidentale. Face à cette tentative de sécularisation des écoles italiennes, dans une démarche sans précédent, vingt-et-un États partis à la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme se sont joints à l’Italie pour réaffirmer la légitimité du christianisme dans la société et l’identité européenne ; ce que la Cour a finalement admis en reconnaissant, en substance, que dans les pays de tradition chrétienne, le christianisme possède une légitimité sociale spécifique qui le distingue des autres croyances philosophiques et religieuses. Parce que l’Italie est un pays de tradition chrétienne, le symbole chrétien peut légitimement avoir une visibilité prépondérante dans la société.

La versione italiana di questo documento e disponibile al seguente link: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2179610La version espanola de este articulo se puede encontrar en: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2320622The case of Lautsi v. Italy, better known as the "Crucifix Case," is a particularly significant case. Its significance is not only political and legal, but also religious. Never before in the history of the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe has a case raised so much public attention and debate. The debate regarding the legitimacy of the symbol of Christ’s presence in Italian schools is emblematic of the cultural crisis in Western Europe regarding religion. Twenty-one State parties to the European Convention on Human Rights, in an unprecedented move, joined Italy to reassert the legitimacy of the public display of Christian symbols in European society. The Court finally recognized, in substance, that in countries of Christian tradition, Christianity enjoys a...

The European Convention on Human Rights recognises the right to freedom of religion. The right to freedom of religion under the Convention include two elements: forum internum and forum externum. Although the former is absolute, a restriction could be imposed on the latter in some circumstances. This causes a tension between individuals and group of individuals who want to manifest their religious beliefs through headscarf or religious symbols and states which try to implement restrictions on the right. Even though the European Court on Human Rights has dealt with the issue over years, it is hard to claim that it has come up with a solution to the problem. Therefore, in this paper the jurisprudence of the ECtHR on Islamic headscarves and religious symbols will be critically discussed. For this aim, the paper will analyse the controversial decisions of the Court along with its recent case law.

Il caso Lautsi contro Italia, più noto come il caso dei crocefissi, ha una grandeimportanza, non semplicemente dal punto di vista politico e giuridico, ma anche religioso. Mai nella storia della Corte e del Consiglio d’Europa un caso aveva suscitato così tanta attenzione e dibattito pubblico. Il dibattitosulla legittimità della presenza del simbolo del Cristo nelle scuole italiane è emblematico della crisi di identità culturale e religiosa dell’Europa occidentale. In un percorso senza precedenti, ventuno Stati membri della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo si sono uniti all’Italia per riaffermare la legittimità del cristianesimo nella società e nell’identità europea; la Corte lo ha ammesso, riconoscendo, in sostanza, che nei paesia tradizione cristiana, il cristianesimo possiede una legittimità socialespecifica che lo distingue dalle altre credenze filosofiche e religiose.

This Comment concerns whether there now exists a Member State parallel to the individual right to thought, conscience and religion under Article 9 and analyses the consistency of this potential development with the existing jurisprudence mandating state neutrality and impartiality. This Comment then considers the similarities and differences between manifesting a belief and symbolic speech, and the consequentially permissible restrictions that may be imposed. It will conclude by suggesting that the Grand Chamber erred in its determination of the crucifix as ‘an essentially passive symbol’ in its failure to consider this question holistically.

Abstract: The paper discusses the context, substance and likely implications of the European Court of Human Rights' very recent but, in our view, historic decision in the case of Lautsi v. Italy. The article offers an outline of the case and of the decision's motivation, a presentation of the responses, and a brief discussion of its relevance to the similar Romanian case. We examine in some detail the objections leveled against the ruling, track the progress of the Court's relevant jurisprudence on the issue, and suggest some possible consequences. ...

O caso Lautsi suscitou acalorados debates na Europa, após a condenação da Itália pela Corte europeia para os direitos do homem, devido à presença dos crucifixos nas escolas públicas, presença que violaria os direitos humanos. Para dar uma base legal para a sua decisão, a Corte criou uma nova obrigação, através da qual o Estado deveria "garantir a neutralidade confessional no campo da educação pública". A Corte adicionou que não conseguia entender “como a exposição, nas salas de aula das escolas públicas, de um símbolo que é razoavelmente associado ao catolicismo (religião majoritária na Itália), poderia servir para o pluralismo educativo, que é essencial para preservar uma ‘sociedade democrática’ assim como a concebe a Convenção".

S oile Lautsi, obywatelka Włoch fi ńskiego pochodzenia, w imieniu swoim i dwojga swoich dzieci wniosła 27 czerwca 2006 r. do Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka [dalej: ETPCz] skargę przeciwko Republice Włoskiej. Skarżąca zarzucała, że okazywanie znaku krzyża w klasach włoskich szkół państwowych, do których uczęszczały jej dzieci, jest sprzeczne z zasadą sekularyzmu, zgodnie z którą chciała ona je wychować, i dlatego stanowi naruszenie jej prawa do wychowania i nauczania zgodnego z jej religijnymi i fi lozofi cznymi (moralnymi 1) przekonaniami 2 , gwarantowanego art. 2 pierwszego Protokołu dodatkowego do Konwencji o ochronie praw człowieka i podstawowych wolności [dalej: Protokół nr 1] 3 , oraz stanowi naruszenie wolności religijnej, gwarantowanej art. 9 Konwencji 4. Wyrok siedmioosobowej Izby został ogłoszony 3 listopada 2009 r. Sprawa stała się głośna i została nazwana "Italian Crucifi x Case" [włoska sprawa krzyża (krucyfi ksu 5)]. Trybunał konkludował, że "obowiązkowe okazywanie symboli określonej religii w sprawowaniu władzy publicznej w specyfi cznych sytuacjach podlegających nadzorowi rządu, w tym zwłaszcza w klasach szkolnych, ogranicza prawo rodziców do wychowania dzieci zgodnie z ich [rodziców, M.P.] przekonaniami i prawo dzieci szkolnych do wyznawania lub niewyznawania jakiejś religii" 6. Trybunał uznał, że takie ograniczenia praw nie są do pogodzenia (incompatible) z obowiązkiem państwa do przestrzegania neutralności w sprawowaniu władzy publicznej, zwłaszcza w dziedzinie edukacji 7 i że został naruszony art. 2 (prawo do nauki) Protokołu nr 1 w powiązaniu

This Article shows that the European Court of Human Rights case of Lautsi v. Italy, upholding the display of a crucifix in an Italian state school classroom, compares favorably to recent United States Supreme Court cases that have upheld the display of crosses and Decalogues on public property. Both the European Court and the Supreme Court now grant greater deference to longstanding public displays of religion, to local decision-making about which religious symbols to maintain, and to the social utility and value of having public displays of religion in a pluralistic democratic society. Moreover, they have come to hold that protection of religious freedom does not require the secularization of society, but protection against coerced participation in or support for religion.

Grande Chambre della Corte Europea per i diritti dell'uomo, con sentenza del 18 marzo 2011, in riforma della precedente decisione del 2009, ha definitivamente composto il noto Affaire Lautsi v. Italia. Questa vicenda, che aveva interessato, nel corso di quasi un decennio, gli organi di giurisdizione amministrativa italiani (Tar e Consiglio di Stato) e la stessa Corte costituzionale, sino a toccare, infine, il Giudice europeo dei diritti dell'uomo, non aveva mancato di suscitare un ampio e vivace dibattito dottrinale. Da questa discussione era emersa, su intuizione di alcuni autori, la teorizzazione della relatività del principio di laicità, vale a dire la convinzione che questo debba essere inteso, nelle sue applicazioni concrete, in senso storico e ponderato, ovverosia avendo presenti il quadro normativo vigente, la storia e la tradizione culturale di ciascun popolo di volta in volta in considerazione. Tale nuovo modo d'intendere la laicità nel suo aspetto pratico trovava, proprio nell'affaire Lautsi, significative conferme dapprima nel Consiglio di Stato e poi, finalmente, nella pronuncia della Corte Europea qui in rassegna. Nel presente lavoro, perciò, muovendo dal decisum della Grande Chambre reso nel 2011, l'autore ripercorre e verifica i passaggi rilevanti, che hanno contrassegnato l'accoglimento nella giurisprudenza della ricordata dottrina, la quale, respingendo le opposte teorie massimaliste, è tesa a salvaguardare le specificità normative e storico-culturali di ogni Stato ed appare -in Italiacome il modo più significativo attraverso cui coniugare la laicità affinché questa sia terreno fertile per la salvaguardia e la convivenza di tradizioni culturali diverse. Sommario 1. L'Affaire Lautsi. -2. Il decisum della Grande Chambre della Corte Europea dei diritti dell'uomo del marzo 2011. -3. La laicità c.d. relativa. -4. Conclusioni. a t t u a l i t à I L P U N T O S U . . . L'ESPOSIZIONE DEL CROCIFISSO di Francesco Patruno -Borsista post dottorato Univ. Bari ⎪ P. 1 2 6 2 g i u r i s p r u d e n z a d i m e r i t o -n . 6 -2 0 1 2

Lautsi v. Italy, best known as the Italian “crucifix case,” is currently pending before the
European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber in Strasbourg, France. This decision is of
considerable importance and has significant implications for all of Europe. The Lautsi debate
over the legitimacy of the presence of the symbol of Christ in Italian society is emblematic of a
much larger battle that is raging throughout Europe: the battle of cultural identity. In an age of
influx of Muslim immigrants, with no accompanying assimilation, the need for an identity
among individual states, and Europe as a whole, has become a preeminent concern

Le 18 mars, la Grande Chambre de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a jugé, par 15 voix contre 2, que la présence de crucifix dans les salles de classe des écoles publiques italiennes ne viole pas la liberté religieuse et le droit des parents à éduquer leurs enfants conformément à leurs convictions philosophiques et religieuses, droits garantis par la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. Cet arrêt renverse une décision adoptée à l’unanimité en novembre 2009. Cette condamnation avait alors provoqué une très forte réaction du peuple italien, plus de 85 % des Italiens se disant favorables au maintien du crucifix. La Cour européenne était accusée de promouvoir une conception radicale de la laïcité, étrangère à l’esprit et à la lettre de la Convention.

La Sentencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos en el caso "Lautsi y otros c. Italia", de 18 de marzo de 2011, es, probablemente, una de las decisiones más importantes de la historia del Tribunal. Como puede deducirse de los numerosos comentarios que ha suscitado, el asunto encierra varios problemas importantes como los límites de los derechos humanos y la soberanía de los estados, el valor cultural de la religión, el modo de conjugar la preservación de la identidad nacional con el respeto al pluralismo o, incluso, la función apropiada de los derechos fundamentales. Este artículo trata de ofrecer algunas respuestas a estos interrogantes. En esta tarea, el autor enfatiza la necesidad de basar los propios argumentos en una teoría de los derechos fundamentales
que sitúe adecuadamente el status del individuo y de las pequeñas comunidades en el
conjunto de la sociedad política

Il y a un an, la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme rendait son arrêt définitif dans l’affaire des crucifix (affaire Lautsi). Cette affaire a marqué la Cour. Depuis, les rapports entre droits de l’homme et religions sont restés au cœur des débats européens et internationaux.

The paper discusses the context, substance and likely implications of the European Court of Human Rights very recent but, in our view, historic decision in the case of Lautsi v. Italy. The article offers an outline of the case and of the decision s motivation, a presentation of the responses, and a brief discussion of its relevance to the similar Romanian case. We examine in some detail the objections leveled against the ruling, track the progress of the Court s relevant jurisprudence on the issue, and suggest some possible consequences.

La buona svolta impressa dal «caso del crocifisso» GRÉGOR PUPPINCK * Adistanza da un anno dalla sentenza definitiva il caso Lautsi contro Italia, più noto come il caso del crocifisso, ha una grande importanza, non semplicemente dal punto di vista politico e giuridico, ma anche religioso. Mai nella storia della Corte e del Consiglio d'Europa un caso aveva suscitato così tanta attenzione e dibattito pubblico.

Il y a un an, la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme rendait son arrêt définitif dans la fameuse affaire des crucifix italien (affaire Lautsi). Retour sur une affaire qui a profondément marqué la Cour européenne et sa conception des droits de l’homme à l’occasion de la publication d’une étude de synthèse par l’un des acteurs de cette affaire, Grégor Puppinck.