Lautsi v Italy
The display of crucifixes in the classrooms of Italian state schools did not breach the right of parents to ensure education in conformity with their convictions, because it was within the state's margin of appreciation.
Facts
Mrs Lautsi, whose children attended a state school in Italy, complained that the display of a crucifix in each classroom, required by Italian regulations, breached her right to ensure their education and teaching in conformity with her religious and philosophical convictions, under article 2 of Protocol No 1, and her and her children's right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. A Chamber of the court found a violation.
Legal principle
The Grand Chamber held, by a majority, that there had been no violation. The court said that the decision whether to perpetuate a tradition fell in principle within the margin of appreciation of the state, and that a crucifix on a wall is an essentially passive symbol, which cannot be deemed to have an influence on pupils comparable to that of didactic speech or participation in religious activities. There was no evidence that the display had any influence on pupils, and Italy did not require pupils to take part in religious teaching and was open to other religions in schools. The decision attracted wide attention across Europe.
Related cases on religion, expression, assembly and association (articles 9 to 11)
- Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109
- Demir and Baykara v Turkey (2009) 48 EHRR 54
- Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23, [2022] AC 408
- Eweida v United Kingdom (2013) 57 EHRR 8
- Handyside v United Kingdom (1979) 1 EHRR 737
- Jersild v Denmark (1995) 19 EHRR 1
- Kokkinakis v Greece (1994) 17 EHRR 397
Studying human rights law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
