Italy has won its appeal before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) against an earlier ECHR ruling which banned the display of Crucifixes in school classrooms.
 
The Grand Chamber found that Italy’s law obliging schools to place the Crucifix in classrooms did not breach the European Convention on Human Rights.
 
Twenty countries, including Poland, Russia, Malta, Romania and Greece, joined Italy’s appeal against the ruling.
 
A Finnish born mother of two children, Sonia Lautsi, had taken the case against Italy, claiming that the presence of Crucifixes in Italian classrooms breached  Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, which guarantees the right of parents to ensure that education conforms “with their own religious and philosophical convictions”.
 
Ms Lautsi also claimed that the Italian law in question violated Article 9 of the Convention, which guarantees the freedom of thought and religion.
 
Italy had argued that the original ruling failed to realise the wide margin of appreciation States enjoy under the Convention regarding sensitive areas such as culture and religion, since there was no common approach in Europe on such matters.
 
They also argued that the Crucifix was not purely a religious symbol.
 
The Grand Chamber rejected the original ECHR finding that the Crucifixes represented “powerful external symbols” and said that there was “no evidence before the Court that the display of a religious symbol on classroom walls may have an influence on pupils”.
 
It held that, “the decision whether or not to perpetuate a tradition falls in principle within the margin of appreciation of the respondent State”.
 
It added: “The Court must moreover take into account the fact that Europe is marked by a great diversity between the States of which it is composed, particularly in the sphere of cultural and historical development.”
 
The Iona Institute welcomed the ruling as “a victory for true pluralism and diversity”.
 
In a statement, Dr John Murray said that the original ECHR ruling had been “an attempt to impose a uniform secularism on virtually all of Europe and to force every member of the Council of Europe, including Ireland, to ignore their national, cultural and religious heritages”.
 
“We agree with Dr Joseph Weiler who, when he testified before the ECHR last July, said: ‘The message of tolerance towards the other should not be translated into a message of intolerance towards one’s own identity’.”
 
“Notably, many other countries joined with Italy in appealing the decision. This shows the extent of the opposition it aroused. We query why Ireland was not one of the countries that joined with the Italians.”
 
The ECHR ruling was also welcomed by Italy’s Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, who had said that  the case was ‘a major battle for freedom of faith’ required to stop believers having to hide ‘in catacombs.’
 
He said he based his views on the fact that for the first time in the Court’s history, 10 member states from the Council of Europe, the human rights body that founded the ECHR, had intervened in support of Italy.
 
Present as the ruling was read out were Italian officials and representatives of the 10 countries: Armenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, Monaco, Romania, Russia and San Marino.
 
The Grand Chamber only rarely agrees to hear appeals and only on matters deemed of particular significance throughout the Council of Europe’s 47 member states.