LA SCANDALOSA SENTENZA

Area di discussione generale aperta a tutti coloro che sono rimasti vittime dei default finanziari e desiderano apportare la loro testimonianza e il loro contributo.
Rispondi
rolieg
Site Admin
Messaggi: 2183
Iscritto il: ven mar 25, 2005 4:18 pm

LA SCANDALOSA SENTENZA

Messaggio da rolieg » gio apr 23, 2009 7:20 am

Press release issued by the Registrar


Chamber judgment1


Lautsi v. Italy (application no. 30814/06)

CRUCIFIX IN CLASSROOMS:

CONTRARY TO PARENTS’ RIGHT TO EDUCATE THEIR CHILDREN IN LINE WITH THEIR CONVICTIONS AND TO CHILDREN’S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION

Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education)

examined jointly with Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion)
of the European Convention on Human Rights

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)

Principal facts

The applicant, Ms Soile Lautsi, is an Italian national who lives in Abano Terme (Italy). In 2001-2002 her children, Dataico and Sami Albertin, aged 11 and 13 respectively, attended the State school “Istituto comprensivo statale Vittorino da Feltre” in Abano Terme. All of the classrooms had a crucifix on the wall, including those in which Ms Lautsi’s children had lessons. She considered that this was contrary to the principle of secularism by which she wished to bring up her children. She informed the school of her position, referring to a Court of Cassation judgment of 2000, which had found the presence of crucifixes in polling stations to be contrary to the principle of the secularism of the State. In May 2002 the school’s governing body decided to leave the crucifixes in the classrooms. A directive recommending such an approach was subsequently sent to all head teachers by the Ministry of State Education.

On 23 July 2002 the applicant complained to the Veneto Regional Administrative Court about the decision by the school’s governing body, on the ground that it infringed the constitutional principles of secularism and of impartiality on the part of the public authorities. The Ministry of State Education, which joined the proceedings as a party, emphasised that the impugned situation was provided for by royal decrees of 1924 and 1928. On 14 January 2004 the administrative court granted the applicant’s request that the case be submitted to the Constitutional Court for an examination of the constitutionality of the presence of a crucifix in classrooms. Before the Constitutional Court, the Government argued that such a display was natural, as the crucifix was not only a religious symbol but also, as the “flag” of the only Church named in the Constitution (the Catholic Church), a symbol of the Italian State. On 15 December 2004 the Constitutional Court held that it did not have jurisdiction, on the ground that the disputed provisions were statutory rather than legislative. The proceedings before the administrative court were resumed, and on 17 March 2005 that court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It held that the crucifix was both the symbol of Italian history and culture, and consequently of Italian identity, and the symbol of the principles of equality, liberty and tolerance, as well as of the State’s secularism. By a judgment of 13 February 2006, the Consiglio di Stato dismissed the applicant’s appeal, on the ground that the cross had become one of the secular values of the Italian Constitution and represented the values of civil life.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

The applicant alleged, in her own name and on behalf of her children, that the display of the crucifix in the State school attended by the latter was contrary to her right to ensure their education and teaching in conformity with her religious and philosophical convictions, within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. The display of the cross had also breached her freedom of conviction and religion, as protected by Article 9 of the Convention.

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 27 July 2006.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal),
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy),
Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania),
Dragoljub Popović (Serbia),
András Sajó (Hungary),
Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges,

and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court

The presence of the crucifix – which it was impossible not to notice in the classrooms – could easily be interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign and they would feel that they were being educated in a school environment bearing the stamp of a given religion. This could be encouraging for religious pupils, but also disturbing for pupils who practised other religions or were atheists, particularly if they belonged to religious minorities. The freedom not to believe in any religion (inherent in the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Convention) was not limited to the absence of religious services or religious education: it extended to practices and symbols which expressed a belief, a religion or atheism. This freedom deserved particular protection if it was the State which expressed a belief and the individual was placed in a situation which he or she could not avoid, or could do so only through a disproportionate effort and sacrifice.

The State was to refrain from imposing beliefs in premises where individuals were dependent on it. In particular, it was required to observe confessional neutrality in the context of public education, where attending classes was compulsory irrespective of religion, and where the aim should be to foster critical thinking in pupils.

The Court was unable to grasp how the display, in classrooms in State schools, of a symbol that could reasonably be associated with Catholicism (the majority religion in Italy) could serve the educational pluralism that was essential to the preservation of a “democratic society” as that was conceived by the Convention, a pluralism that was recognised by the Italian Constitutional Court.

The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities, and especially in classrooms, thus restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions, and the right of children to believe or not to believe. The Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 taken jointly with Article 9 of the Convention.

***

This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).

Press contacts
Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or

Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04)
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)
Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70)
Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)

Nina Salomon (tel + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)


The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.

1 Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.
rolieg

rolieg
Site Admin
Messaggi: 2183
Iscritto il: ven mar 25, 2005 4:18 pm

TRADOTTA

Messaggio da rolieg » mer nov 04, 2009 5:46 pm

Traduzione: Francese » Italiano
Press release issued by the Registrar


Chamber judgment1


Lautsi v. Italy (application no. 30814/06)

CRUCIFIX IN CLASSROOMS:

CONTRARY TO PARENTS’ RIGHT TO EDUCATE THEIR CHILDREN IN LINE WITH THEIR CONVICTIONS AND TO CHILDREN’S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION

Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education)

examined jointly with Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion)
of the European Convention on Human Rights

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)

Principal facts

The applicant, Ms Soile Lautsi, is an Italian national who lives in Abano Terme (Italy). In 2001-2002 her children, Dataico and Sami Albertin, aged 11 and 13 respectively, attended the State school “Istituto comprensivo statale Vittorino da Feltre” in Abano Terme. All of the classrooms had a crucifix on the wall, including those in which Ms Lautsi’s children had lessons. She considered that this was contrary to the principle of secularism by which she wished to bring up her children. She informed the school of her position, referring to a Court of Cassation judgment of 2000, which had found the presence of crucifixes in polling stations to be contrary to the principle of the secularism of the State. In May 2002 the school’s governing body decided to leave the crucifixes in the classrooms. A directive recommending such an approach was subsequently sent to all head teachers by the Ministry of State Education.

On 23 July 2002 the applicant complained to the Veneto Regional Administrative Court about the decision by the school’s governing body, on the ground that it infringed the constitutional principles of secularism and of impartiality on the part of the public authorities. The Ministry of State Education, which joined the proceedings as a party, emphasised that the impugned situation was provided for by royal decrees of 1924 and 1928. On 14 January 2004 the administrative court granted the applicant’s request that the case be submitted to the Constitutional Court for an examination of the constitutionality of the presence of a crucifix in classrooms. Before the Constitutional Court, the Government argued that such a display was natural, as the crucifix was not only a religious symbol but also, as the “flag” of the only Church named in the Constitution (the Catholic Church), a symbol of the Italian State. On 15 December 2004 the Constitutional Court held that it did not have jurisdiction, on the ground that the disputed provisions were statutory rather than legislative. The proceedings before the administrative court were resumed, and on 17 March 2005 that court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It held that the crucifix was both the symbol of Italian history and culture, and consequently of Italian identity, and the symbol of the principles of equality, liberty and tolerance, as well as of the State’s secularism. By a judgment of 13 February 2006, the Consiglio di Stato dismissed the applicant’s appeal, on the ground that the cross had become one of the secular values of the Italian Constitution and represented the values of civil life.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

The applicant alleged, in her own name and on behalf of her children, that the display of the crucifix in the State school attended by the latter was contrary to her right to ensure their education and teaching in conformity with her religious and philosophical convictions, within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. The display of the cross had also breached her freedom of conviction and religion, as protected by Article 9 of the Convention.

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 27 July 2006.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal),
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy),
Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania),
Dragoljub Popović (Serbia),
András Sajó (Hungary),
Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges,

and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court

The presence of the crucifix – which it was impossible not to notice in the classrooms – could easily be interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign and they would feel that they were being educated in a school environment bearing the stamp of a given religion. This could be encouraging for religious pupils, but also disturbing for pupils who practised other religions or were atheists, particularly if they belonged to religious minorities. The freedom not to believe in any religion (inherent in the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Convention) was not limited to the absence of religious services or religious education: it extended to practices and symbols which expressed a belief, a religion or atheism. This freedom deserved particular protection if it was the State which expressed a belief and the individual was placed in a situation which he or she could not avoid, or could do so only through a disproportionate effort and sacrifice.

The State was to refrain from imposing beliefs in premises where individuals were dependent on it. In particular, it was required to observe confessional neutrality in the context of public education, where attending classes was compulsory irrespective of religion, and where the aim should be to foster critical thinking in pupils.

The Court was unable to grasp how the display, in classrooms in State schools, of a symbol that could reasonably be associated with Catholicism (the majority religion in Italy) could serve the educational pluralism that was essential to the preservation of a “democratic society” as that was conceived by the Convention, a pluralism that was recognised by the Italian Constitutional Court.

The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities, and especially in classrooms, thus restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions, and the right of children to believe or not to believe. The Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 taken jointly with Article 9 of the Convention.

***

This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).

Press contacts
Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or

Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04)
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)
Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70)
Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)

Nina Salomon (tel + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)


The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.

1 Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.



- -


Comunicato stampa rilasciato dal cancelliere


Sezione judgment1


Lautsi V. Italia (ricorso no. 30814/06)

Crocifisso nelle aule scolastiche:

CONTRARIAMENTE A diritto dei genitori 'per educare i bambini LORO IN LINEA CON LE LORO CREDENZE E il diritto dei bambini alla libertà di religione

Violazione dell'articolo 2 del Protocollo n. 1 (diritto all'istruzione)

Hanno esaminato congiuntamente con l'articolo 9 (libertà di pensiero, di coscienza e di religione)
della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell'uomo

Ai sensi dell'articolo 41 (equa soddisfazione) della Convenzione, la Corte ha attribuito alla ricorrente 5.000 € (euro) in materia di danno non patrimoniale. (La sentenza è disponibile solo in francese.)

Principali fatti

La ricorrente, la signora Soile Lautsi, è un cittadino italiano che vive in Abano Terme (Italia). Nel 2001-2002 i suoi figli, Dataico Albertin e Sami, di età compresa tra 11 e 13, rispettivamente, ha frequentato la scuola di Stato ", Istituto Comprensivo Statale Vittorino da Feltre" di Abano Terme. Tutte le classi hanno un crocifisso sulla parete, compresi quelli in cui la sig.ra Lautsi preso lezioni per bambini. Ha ritenuto che questo fosse in contrasto con il principio di laicità con la quale lei ha voluto portare i suoi figli. Ha informato la scuola della sua posizione, facendo riferimento ad una sentenza della Corte di Cassazione del 2000, che aveva rilevato la presenza di crocifissi nei seggi elettorali in contrasto con il principio della laicità dello Stato. Nel maggio 2002 l'organo di governo della scuola ha deciso di lasciare il Crocifisso nelle aule. Una direttiva raccomanda un tale approccio è stato successivamente inviato a tutti gli insegnanti capo dello Stato da parte del Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione.

Il 23 luglio 2002 la ricorrente ha presentato una denuncia al Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Veneto in merito alla decisione da parte dell'organo di governo della scuola, per il motivo che essa ha violato i principi costituzionali di laicità e di imparzialità da parte delle autorità pubbliche. Il Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione dello Stato, che hanno aderito al procedimento come un partito, ha sottolineato che la situazione contestata è stata prevista dal regio decreto del 1924 e 1928. Il 14 gennaio 2004 il tribunale amministrativo ha accolto la domanda della ricorrente che il caso sia sottoposto alla Corte Costituzionale per un esame di legittimità costituzionale della presenza del crocifisso nelle aule scolastiche. Dinanzi alla Corte Costituzionale, il governo ha sostenuto che tale esposizione è stata naturale, come il crocifisso non è solo un simbolo religioso anche, come la "bandiera" della Chiesa solo in nome della Costituzione (la Chiesa cattolica), un simbolo della Stato italiano. Il 15 dicembre 2004 la Corte Costituzionale ha affermato che non era competente, per il fatto che le disposizioni controverse sono state di legge, piuttosto che legislativo. Il procedimento dinanzi al giudice amministrativo sono stati ripresi, e il 17 marzo 2005 che il giudice ha respinto il reclamo del ricorrente. Esso ha dichiarato che il crocifisso era sia il simbolo della storia e della cultura italiana, e di conseguenza di identità italiana, e il simbolo dei principi di uguaglianza, libertà e tolleranza, così come della laicità dello Stato. Con sentenza del 13 febbraio 2006, il Consiglio di Stato ha respinto il ricorso della ricorrente, per il fatto che la croce era diventato uno dei valori laici della Costituzione italiana ed ha rappresentato i valori della vita civile.

Reclami, la procedura e la composizione della Corte

Il richiedente ha affermato, nel suo nome proprio e per conto dei suoi figli, che l'esposizione del crocifisso nella scuola di Stato hanno partecipato da parte di quest'ultimo era contrario alla sua destra per garantire la loro istruzione e l'insegnamento in conformità con le sue convinzioni religiose e filosofiche, entro ai sensi dell'articolo 2 del Protocollo n. 1. La visualizzazione della croce aveva anche violato la sua libertà di fede e religione, come tutelata dall'articolo 9 della Convenzione.

Il ricorso è stato depositato presso la Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo il 27 luglio 2006.

Sentenza è stata pronunciata da una Camera dei sette giudici, composta come segue:

Francoise Tulkens (Belgio), presidente,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portogallo)
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italia)
Danutė Jočienė (Lituania)
Dragoljub Popovic (Serbia)
Andras Sajo (Ungheria)
Isil Karakas (Turchia), giudici,

e Sally Dollé, cancelliere di sezione.

Decisione della Corte

La presenza del crocifisso - che è stato impossibile non notare nelle aule - potrebbe facilmente essere interpretata dagli alunni di tutte le età come un segno religioso e che si sentirebbero che stavano per essere educati in un ambiente scolastico recante il timbro di una data religione . Questo potrebbe essere per i religiosi Incoraggiare gli alunni, ma anche inquietante per gli alunni che hanno praticato altre religioni o atei sono stati, in particolare se appartenessero a minoranze religiose. La libertà di non credere in nessuna religione (inerente la libertà di religione garantita dalla Convenzione) non era limitato alla mancanza di servizi religiosi o di educazione religiosa: è esteso a pratiche e di simboli che ha espresso le convinzioni personali, una religione o di ateismo. Questa libertà merita una protezione particolare se fosse lo Stato che ha espresso la convinzione e l'individuo è stato messo in una situazione che lui o lei non poteva evitare, o potrebbe farlo solo attraverso uno sforzo sproporzionato e sacrificio.

Lo Stato era quello di evitare di imporre credenze nei locali in cui gli individui sono stati da essa dipendenti. In particolare, si è tenuta a rispettare la neutralità confessionale nel contesto della pubblica istruzione, dove frequentare le lezioni è obbligatoria, indipendentemente dalla religione, e dove l'obiettivo dovrebbe essere quello di promuovere il pensiero critico negli alunni.

La Corte è stata in grado di comprendere come il display, in aule nelle scuole dello Stato, di un simbolo che può ragionevolmente essere associato con il cattolicesimo (la religione di maggioranza in Italia) potrebbe servire il pluralismo educativo che è stato essenziale per la conservazione di una "società democratica" come tale è stato concepito dalla Convenzione, un pluralismo che è stato riconosciuto dalla Corte costituzionale italiana.

Il display obbligatoria di un simbolo di una confessione determinata in locali utilizzati dalle autorità pubbliche, e soprattutto nelle aule scolastiche, così limitato il diritto dei genitori ad educare i loro figli in conformità con le loro convinzioni, e il diritto dei bambini a credere o non credere . La Corte ha concluso, all'unanimità, che vi è stata una violazione dell'articolo 2 del Protocollo n. 1 presa di comune accordo con l'articolo 9 della Convenzione.

***

Il presente comunicato stampa è un documento prodotto dal Registro di sistema, che contiene il riassunto non vincola la Corte. Le sentenze sono accessibili sul suo sito Internet (http://www.echr.coe.int).

Contatti stampa
Federico Dolt (tel: + 33 (0) 3 90 21 53 39) o

Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0) 3 90 21 42 04)
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0) 3 88 41 35 30)
Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0) 3 88 41 35 70)
Celine Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0) 3 90 21 58 77)

Nina Solomon (tel + 33 (0) 3 90 21 49 79)


La Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo è stato istituito a Strasburgo dal Consiglio d'Europa, gli Stati membri nel 1959 per far fronte a presunte violazioni della Convenzione europea del 1950 sui diritti umani.

1 Ai sensi dell'articolo 43 della convenzione, entro tre mesi dalla data di una sentenza Camera, ogni parte in causa può, in casi eccezionali, chiedere che il caso è deferita al 17-member Grande Sezione della Corte. In tal caso, un collegio di cinque giudici valuta se il caso solleva una questione grave relativa all'interpretazione o all'applicazione della Convenzione o dei suoi protocolli, o un grave problema di rilevanza generale, nel qual caso la Grande Sezione esprimerà un giudizio definitivo. Se non questione o questioni sorgono, il pannello sarà respingere la richiesta, a quel punto la sentenza diviene definitiva. In caso contrario, le sentenze Sezione diventata definitiva alla scadenza del periodo di tre mesi o prima se le parti dichiarano che non intendono presentare una richiesta di rinvio.



- --
rolieg

Rispondi

Chi c’è in linea

Visitano il forum: Franca e 4 ospiti