Lautsi v. Italy at the Grand Chamber

Today the European Court of Human Rights' Grand Chamber delivered the long-awaited and hotly-debated Lautsi decision. The case, in short, turned on whether or not the obligatory presence of a crucifix in public schools violated Art. 2 of Protocol 1 and/or Article 9(1).

Art. 2 Protocol 1 reads:

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 religions and philosophical convictions.

The second sentence is what was at stake in Lautsi - did the presence of the crucifix in Italian classrooms violate the right of a parent to ensure education and teaching in conformity with religious/philosophical convictions that are, in this case, not Christian?

Article 9(1) reads:

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.

Back in 2009, the second chamber of the ECtHR decided that the cross in classrooms did violate Art. 2 Protocol 1 in conjunction with Article 9. Of particular importance to the second chamber was the effect that the presence of the crucifix in every Italian classroom would have on students:

"50. In considering this question, the Court will take into account the particular nature of the religious symbol and its impact on students of a young age, especially children of the applicant. Indeed, in countries where the vast majority of the population belong to a particular religion, the manifestation of the rites and symbols of this religion without restriction of place and manner, may constitute a pressure on students who do not practise that religion or those who adhere to another religion (Karaduman v. Turkey, Commission decision of May 3, 1993)"

The Grand Chamber rejected any such impact and found Italy's law obliging the presence of the crucifix in classrooms to fall within the "margin of appreciation" states have in implementing the Convention. In doing so, the Grand Chamber showed itself to be attune to the criticisms in Europe and, it appears, buckled under their pressure. The Court has thus, once again, proven it is far from an activist court. Indeed, the Court's friendliness toward nation states makes one wonder how much relevance is has anymore in ensuring the protection of human rights in Europe. Perhaps the emerging protection-deficit is one that the European Court of Justice will care to fill.

Related posts:

The Scary, Activist ECtHR

The European Court of Human Rights' Cowardice and Illogicality on Family Unification Rights