The Court’s motivations

“While it is true that the crucifix is primarily a religious symbol, there is no evidence before the Court that the display of a religious symbol on classroom walls may have an influence on young persons whose convictions are still in the process of being formed”. That’s the conclusion reached by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg in its judgement issued on the Lautsi versus Italy case on 18 March 2011. The best known emblem of the Christian faith can therefore remain in school classrooms without any fears for the freedom of education and to right to education of children and adolescents, as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.Legitimate doubts, but the case is closed. “In today’s judgement in the case of Lautsi and Others v. Italy , which is final, the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority (15 votes to two), that there had been no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) to the European Convention on Human Rights”, declares a press release put out by the Court. The case, pointed out the Court, “concerned the presence of crucifixes in State-school classrooms in Italy, which, according to the applicants, was incompatible with the obligation on the State, in the exercise of the functions which it assumed in relation to education and to teaching, to respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in accordance with their own religious and philosophical convictions”. The Grand Chamber, overturning the previous verdict of November 2009 issued by one of the Chambers of the Court, declared that “whilst it was understandable that the applicant might see in the display of crucifixes in the classrooms of the State school formerly attended by her children a lack of respect on the State’s part for her right to ensure their education and teaching in conformity with her own philosophical convictions, her subjective perception was not sufficient to establish a breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1”. The Court’s judgement of 18 March 2011 is final: i.e. not subject to appeal. It was immediately transmitted, as explained by the 17 judges chaired by the Frenchman Jean-Paul Costa -, to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, highest political organ of the institution, to monitor its implementation.Tradition to be respected. Analyzing the judgement issued by the Grand Chamber, a number of arguments emerged that will probably prompt wider debate at the political and jurisprudential levels both in Italy and in Europe. The Court in fact affirmed: “The Italian government submitted that the presence of crucifixes in State-school classrooms now corresponded to a tradition which they considered it important to perpetuate. It added that, beyond its religious meaning, the crucifix symbolized the principles and values which formed the foundation of democracy and western civilization, and that its presence in classrooms was justifiable on that account”. With regard to the first point, “the Court took the view that, while the decision whether or not to perpetuate a tradition fell in principle within the margin of appreciation of the member states of the Council of Europe, the reference to a tradition could not relieve them of their obligation to respect the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention and its Protocols”. Regarding the second point, “noting that the Italian Consiglio di Stato and the Court of Cassation had diverging views on the meaning of the crucifix and that the Constitutional Court had not given a ruling [on the matter], the Court considered that it was not for it to take a position regarding a domestic debate among domestic courts”.No indoctrination. The judgement acknowledges that by prescribing the presence of crucifixes in State-school classrooms, “the Italian regulations conferred on the country’s majority religion preponderant visibility in the school environment. In its view, that was not enough in itself sufficient, however, to denote a process of indoctrination on Italy’s part and establish a breach of the requirements of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1”. The Court further observed that “a crucifix on a wall is an essentially passive symbol whose influence on pupils was not comparable to that of didactic speech or participation in religious activities”. Moreover, according to the judges, “the effects of the greater visibility which the presence of the crucifix gave to Christianity in schools needed to be further placed in perspective”, since “the presence of crucifixes was not associated with compulsory teaching about Christianity; according to the Government, Italy opened up the school environment to other religions (pupils were authorized to wear symbols or apparel having a religious connotation; non-majority religious practices were taken into account; optional religious education could be organized in schools for all recognized religious creeds; the end of Ramadan was often celebrated in schools, and so on). There was nothing to suggest that the authorities were intolerant of pupils who believed in other religions”.