The European Court of Human Rights held by a majority of 15 votes to two that in displaying the crucifix in Italian state-school classrooms there had been no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned the presence of crucifixes in state-school classrooms in Italy which, according to the applicants was incompatible with the obligation of 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 applicants are Italian nationals who were born in 1957, 1988 and 1990. The first applicant, Soile Lautsi, and her two sons, Dataico and Sami Albertin, live in Italy. Following a decision of the school’s governors to keep religious symbols in classrooms, Ms Lautsi brought proceedings in the Veneto Administrative Court on 23 July, 2002, complaining of, among other things, an infringement of the principle of secularism.

The court considered that the effects of the greater visibility which the presence of the crucifix gave to Christianity in schools needed to be further placed in perspective by consideration of the following points: 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 authorised to wear symbols or apparel having a religious connotation; non-majority religious practices were taken into account; optional religious education could be organised in schools for all recognised 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, were non-believers or who held non-religious philosophical convictions.

In addition, the applicants had not asserted that the presence of the crucifix in classrooms had encouraged the development of teaching practices with a proselytising tendency, or claimed that Dataico and Sami Albertin had ever experienced a tendentious reference to the crucifix by a teacher. Lastly, the Court noted that Ms Lautsi had retained in full her right as a parent to enlighten and advise her children and to guide them on a path in line with her own philosophical convictions.

The Court concluded that, in deciding to keep crucifixes in the classrooms of the state school attended by Ms Lautsi’s children, the authorities had acted within the limits of the margin of appreciation left to Italy in the context of its obligation to respect, in the exercise of the functions it assumed in relation to education and teaching, the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions. Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the first applicant.