CaseOfLautsiV.Italy

CaseOfLautsiV.Italy - SECOND SECTION CASE OF LAUTSI v....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
SECOND SECTION CASE OF LAUTSI v. ITALY (Application no. 30814/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 3 November 2009 Referral to the Grand Chamber 01/03/2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
In the case of Lautsi v. Italy, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Vladimiro Zagrebelsky, Danut ė Jo č ien ė , Dragoljub Popovi ć , András Sajó, I ş ı l Karaka ş , judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 13 October 2009, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 30814/06) against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Italian national, Ms Soile Lautsi (“the applicant”), on 27 July 2006. She brought the proceedings in her own name and on behalf of her two children, Dataico and Sami Albertin. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr N. Paoletti, a lawyer practising in Rome. The Italian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms E. Spatafora and their deputy co-Agent, Mr N. Lettieri. 3. The applicant alleged that the display of the sign of the cross in the classrooms of the Italian state-school attended by her children constituted interference incompatible with the freedom of belief and religion and with the right to education and teaching in conformity with her religious and philosophical convictions. 4. On 1 July 2008 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided that the admissibility and merits of the application should be examined together. 5. The applicant and the Government each filed written observations on the merits of the case (Rule 59 § 1). THE FACTS
Background image of page 2
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6. The applicant lives in Abano Terme and has two children, Dataico and Sami Albertin. The two boys, aged eleven and thirteen respectively, attended in 2001-2002 the Istituto comprensivo statale Vittorino da Feltre, a state-school in Abano Terme. 7. The applicant considered the school's practice of displaying a crucifix in each of the classrooms contrary to the principle of secularism in accordance with which she wished to bring up her children. She raised the question at a meeting held by the school on 22 April 2002, pointing out that the Court of Cassation, in judgment no. 4273 of 1 March 2000, had ruled that the presence of a crucifix in the polling stations prepared for political elections was contrary to the principle of the secular basis of the State. 8.
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/05/2012 for the course 790 395 taught by Professor Tillery during the Fall '09 term at Rutgers.

Page1 / 16

CaseOfLautsiV.Italy - SECOND SECTION CASE OF LAUTSI v....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online