Between the Margins of Appreciation and Neutrality: the Lautsi Case and a New Balance in the Field of Religious Freedom in Europe
Keywords:
margins of appreciation, European Court of Human Rights, Religious Symbols, neutrality, religion, identityAbstract
The paper deals with the famous case Lautsi v. Italy at the European Court of Human Rights, on crucifixes in the public schools, with two opposite Court rulings in 2009 and 2011. While analyzing the logic of both rulings, the author explores two interacting concepts: „margin of appreciation“ and «neutrality». He believes, at the first ruling of 2009 the Court practice of margin of appreciation was ignored, and the principle of neutrality was imposed; while the second ruling, trying to introduce correction in this sense, made other mistakes by drawing upon disputable factual and normative argumentation. The case of crucifix thus reveals tensions between national legal systems and the conventional and European Law. Overall, today, cases about religious symbols in the public square serve as a medium for the European community to reflect upon its identity and the role of religion in this identity.Downloads
References
Cardia, C. (2010) Identitа religiosa e culturale europea. La questione del crocifisso. Torino: Allemandi.
Colaianni, N. (2010) „Il crocefisso a Strasburgo: l'Italia non e la Francia", Quaderni costituzionali. Vol. 1: 148-154.
Colaianni, N. (2010) „Lautsi: Crucifix in the Classroom Redux“, European Journal of International Law. 21 (1): 277-280.
Conti, R. (2010) „Leuropa e il cricifisso“, Politica del diritto.
Cortese, F. (2010) „Dalogando con Weiler: il crocefisso e gli ‘imbarazzi' della giustizia", Quaderni Costuzionali. Vol. 4: 877-884.
D'Agostino, F. (2009) „Prove di accecata sentenziosita“, Avvenire. 4 novembre.
Dzehtsiarou, K. (2009) „European Consensus: A Way of Reasoning", Law, Criminology & Socio-Legal Studies Research Paper Series. Vol. 11.
Evans, C. (2010-2011) „Individual and Group Religious Freedom in the European Court of Human Rights: Cracks in the Intellectual Architecture“, Journal of Law and Religion. Vol. 26: 332-333.
Groppi, N. (2011) „Quella Corte che ci guarda dall’Europa“, L'Unitа. 6 novembre.
Hirschl, R. Comparative Law and Religion (Forthcoming).
Hodson, L. (2011) NGOs and the Struggle for Human Rights in Europe. Oxford: Hart.
Hoffman, L. (2009) The University of Human Rights (Juridical Studies Board Annual Lecture), 19 March [online: www.jsboard.co.uk].
Koppelmann, A. (2004) „The Fluidity of Neutrality“, The Review of Politics. Vol. 66.
Leigh, I. (2010) „New trends in Religious Liberty and the European Court of Human Rights“, Ecclesiastical Law Journal. Vol. 12: 266-279.
Leoni, A. (2011) „L'Affaire Lautsi c. Italie: la vicenda giudiziaria dellesposizione del crocifisso nelle aule scolastiche“, Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale. Avrile.
Lestas, G. (2007) A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mancini, S. (2009) „La supervisione europea presa sul serio: la controversa sul crocifisso tra margine di apprezzamento e ruolo contro-maggioritario delle Corti", Giurisprudenza costituzionale. Vol. 5: 4055-4083.
Mancini, S. (2010) „The Crucifix Rage: Supranational Constitutionalism Bumps against the Counter-Majoritarian Difficulty", European Constitutional Law Review. Vol. 6: 6-27.
Mowbray, A. (2004) The Development of Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights. Oxford: Hart.
Murphy, C. (2001) „British Political Populism Risks Conflict with Europe over Human Rights Court“, The Guardian. 17 February.
Neuwenhuius, A. (2007) „The Concept of Pluralism in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights", European Constitutional Law Review. Vol. 3: 367-384.
Pajno, S. (2010) „Dialogando con Weiler: apologo di Marco e Leonardo", Quaderni Costuzionali. Vol. 4: 873-876.
Puppnick, G. (2011) „Un’alleanza contro il secolarismo“, L'Osservatore Romano. 22 luglio.
Rodotа, S. (2009) „La battaglia su un simbolo“, La Repubblica. 4 novembre.
Rozakis, C. (2009) „Is the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights a Procrustean Bed? Or is it a Contribution to the Creation of a European Public Order? A Modest
Reply to Lord Hoffman’s Criticisms“, University College London Human Rights Law Review, pp. 20-31.
Scerbo, A. (2010) „Simboli religiosi e laicita a partire dal caso Lautsi v. Italy“, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale. Novembre.
Tega, D. (2010) „Cercando un significato europeo di laicita: la liberta religiosa nella giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti“, Quaderni costituzionali. XXX (4).
Toscano, M. (2010) „Nuovi segnali di crisi: i casi ‘Lombardi Vallauri’ e ‘Lautsi’ davanti alla Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo“, in Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale. Maggio.
Tulkens, F. (2009) „The European Convention on Human Rights and Church-State Relations: Pluralism vs Pluralism“, Cardozo Law Review. 30 (6): 2575-2591.
Ventura, M. (2011) „La tradizione come diritto“, Corriere della sera. 19 marzo.
Watt, N. (2011) „Prisoners Vote Refusal against European Court ‘would be like dictatorship”, The Guardian. 16 February.
Weiler, J.H.H. (2010) „State and Nation; Church, Mosque and Synagogue - the Trailer", International Journal of Constitutional Law. 8 (2): 161-165.
Wildhaber, L. (2002) „A Constitutional Future for the European Court of Human Rights?“, Human Rights Law Journal. 23 (5-7).
Witte-jr., J. (2011) „Lift High the Cross? Religion in Public Spaces“, Huffington Post. 27 marzo [online: www.huffingtonpost.com].
Zucca, L. (2011) „A Comment on Lautsi", European Journal of International Law: TALK /. 19 marzo [online: www.ejiltalk.org].
Zucca, L. (Forthcoming) „Lautsi - A Commentary of the Grand Chamber Decision", International Journal of Constitutional Law.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
How to Cite
Коды статьи
- EDN RXOEJH
- Тип статьи (РИНЦ) Научная статья (Научная статья)
