Brussels, 21/03/2011 (Agence Europe) - On Friday 18 March, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decided that schools can keep their crucifixes under the “margin of appreciation” that states have at their disposal. This decision governs the request made by an Italian of Finnish origin who lodged a complaint at the ECHR in 2006 against crucifixes being displayed in a state school in northern Italy attended by her two daughters.
This definitive decision over-rules an initial decision by the court of first instance in November 2009. The ECHR at the time stated that Italy was violating the provision on the right to education under the European Convention of Human Rights (Article 2 of the Convention Protocol No.1), as well as the provision on freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9) on which the ECHR had also based its decision.
This position was then contested by the Italian government. Since the beginning of 2010 the latter has been requesting that the case be sent to the Court. On Friday, 18 March it won its case. In its decision, the ECHR stated that “while the crucifix was above all a religious symbol, there was no evidence before the Court that the display of such a symbol on classroom walls might have an influence on pupils”. It also declared that “whilst it was nonetheless understandable that the first 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 ECHR did not endorse the Italian government's argument that the presence of Catholic crosses in schools are a national “tradition” and symbolise “the principles and values which formed the foundation of democracy and western civilisation”. The Court refused to give its verdict on the subject but ruled that “states enjoyed a margin of appreciation in their efforts to reconcile the exercise of the functions they assumed in relation to education and teaching with respect for the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.” The Court also stated that it “had a duty in principle to respect the states' decisions in those matters, including the place they accorded to religion, provided that those decisions did not lead to a form of indoctrination”.
The Court explained that this margin of appreciation, particularly in the absence of “European consensus” on the question should be overseen by the Court, which should also ensure that this choice does not allow for any indoctrination. (S.P./transl.fl)