## Facts

- Soile Lautsi, an Italian national, objected to crucifixes fixed on the walls of classrooms attended by her two sons at a state school in Abano Terme, Italy.
- In 2002, her husband requested removal of the crucifixes, arguing they conflicted with secular education and the family’s convictions; the school’s governing body decided to keep them.
- Lautsi challenged the practice in Italian administrative courts, arguing it violated principles of secularism and rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.
- The Ministry of Education relied on Italian regulations (royal decrees of 1924 and 1928) prescribing crucifixes in state-school classrooms.
- Domestic courts upheld the practice, reasoning that, in the Italian context, the crucifix could represent values linked to democracy and humanism and was not legally treated as coercive religious instruction.

## Issues

1. Whether mandatory display of crucifixes in state-school classrooms violated the State’s duty to respect parents’ religious and philosophical convictions in education under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, read with Article 9.
2. Whether the display amounted to state religious indoctrination or breached state neutrality and impartiality in public education.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber held, by 15 votes to 2, that there was no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 interpreted in light of Article 9, reversing a Chamber judgment that had found a violation.
- The Court treated the classroom display decision as part of the State’s educational functions and therefore within the scope of the parental-respect obligation.
- The Court accepted the crucifix is primarily a religious symbol, but held the applicant’s perception of it as offensive was insufficient, by itself, to establish a breach.
- Given the lack of European consensus on religious symbols in state schools, the Court afforded Italy a wide margin of appreciation, subject to supervision for indoctrination.
- The Court found no evidence of coercion, proselytism, or compulsory religious practice linked to the crucifix; the symbol’s presence was considered essentially passive and not comparable to instructional religious activity.
- The Court concluded Italy had not exceeded its margin of appreciation and that the display, without more, did not constitute indoctrination or a failure to respect parents’ convictions.

## Legal Principles

- Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 requires the State, in performing educational functions, to respect parents’ religious and philosophical convictions and to avoid indoctrination.
- A religious symbol displayed in a public-school setting is not, standing alone, sufficient to prove indoctrination or a Convention violation.
- In areas lacking European consensus—such as regulation of religious symbols in state schools—States receive a wide margin of appreciation, limited by the prohibition on coercive or indoctrinating education.
- State neutrality under the Convention focuses on preventing coercion and indoctrination; passive exposure to religious symbolism may fall within permissible state discretion when pluralism is otherwise protected.

## Conclusion

The Grand Chamber ruled that Italy’s practice of displaying crucifixes in state-school classrooms did not violate Convention protections for parental educational rights and freedom of religion because the display, viewed as a passive symbol and unsupported by evidence of coercion or indoctrination, remained within Italy’s margin of appreciation.


Lautsi & Others v. Italy, App. No. 30814/06 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Grand Chamber 2011)