A record 10 States, not including Ireland, have joined the case against a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights ruling last November that Italian state schools were breaching religious freedom by having crucifixes in classrooms.

The ruling, known as the Lautsi case, was made last year, but Italy is appealing the case to the Grand Chamber of the ECHR. The case is set to be heard on June 30th.

Armenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, Monaco, San-Marino, Romania and the Russian Federation have all formally asked the Court to be officially “third party” into the procedure before the Grand Chamber of the Court.

No State, nor any important NGO, has intervened in support of the Court ruling banning the crucifix.

In addition to the 10 member states, a number of other States, including Austria and Poland took positions against the November 3, 2009 decision. Twelve NGOs, including the European Centre for Law and Justice, have also been admitted as third parties in support of the Italian case.

The Lautsi case has been referred to the Grand Chamber after the Italian Government appealed (on January 28th, 2010) a first decision issued by the Second Section of the Court last November 3, 2009.

In its initial decision, the Court ruled that the presence of the crucifix in the classrooms is “contrary to parents’ right to educate their children in line with their convictions and to children’s right to freedom of religion” because the Italian pupils would feel “educated in a school environment bearing the stamp of a given religion.”

Dr. Gregor Puppinck, Director of the European Centre for Law and Justice, said that the number of countries supporting the Italian case was “an important precedent in the practice of the Court”.

Usually, member states abstained from intervening, or intervene only when the case affects a national of their State, Dr Puppinck said.

He added: “The Lautsi case is unique and unprecedented. 10 States are in fact explaining to the Court what is the limit of its jurisdiction; what is the limit of its ability to create new “rights” against the will of the member States. This can bee seen as a kind of counter balancing of power.”

The fact that countries with Orthodox and Catholic backgrounds were uniting in the face of the liberal and secularist ideology was also a significant element, he said.

Dr Puppinck admitted that the Member States in question were “giving a political answer to the Court ruling”, but he said that this answer was legitimate, since “the States are the ones who drafted the Convention”.

Dr Puppinck said: “The role of the ECHR is to apply the European Convention on Human Rights and to give an interpretation of it. It does not have a general jurisdiction over the national constitutions on any issue related to Human Rights. Its competency is subsidiary and limited to make sure that the 47 Member States properly respect the rights guaranteed in the Convention.

“In ruling for the secularisation of schools the Court last November went too far into the creation of new obligations on the member States disregarding national sovereignties.

“By intervening, the States are explaining that the Court has superseded itself in the creation of rights. Those States explained that it can not be found in the Convention that there are any duties to secularize education in Europe. In fact, the Convention says nothing on the nature of the relationship between the State and the church.

“Laïcité” or secularisation is not part of the Convention.”