Klage over religiøs symbolik i mit pasMit pas har på indersiden et billede af en kristus. Det er en krænkelse af min religionsfrihed,idet den danske stat tvinger mig til at bære et religiøst symbol, som jeg ikke tilslutter mig.Jeg påberåber mig Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstols afgørelse 3 november 2009.Her fastslog Menneskerettighedsdomstolen, at krucifixer på offentlige skoler var en krænkelse afden Europæiske Menneskeretskonventions artikel 9 om religionsfrihed – se bilag.Oplys mig derfor om første klageinstans for mit anbringende, herunder hvilke ankeinstanser jeghar fra første klageinstans og videre op til Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstol.Tillad mig samtidig at foreslå, at De informerer justitsministeren om denne sag.

81903.11.2009Press release issued by the RegistrarChamber judgment1Lautsi v. Italy(application no. 30814/06)CRUCIFIX IN CLASSROOMS:CONTRARY TO PARENTS’ RIGHT TO EDUCATE THEIR CHILDREN IN LINE WITH THEIRCONVICTIONS 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 RightsUnder 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 factsThe applicant, Ms Soile Lautsi, is an Italian national who lives in Abano Terme (Italy). In 2001-2002her children, Dataico and Sami Albertin, aged 11 and 13 respectively, attended the State school“Istitutocomprensivo statale Vittorino da Feltre”in Abano Terme. All of the classrooms had acrucifix on the wall, including those in which Ms Lautsi’s children had lessons. She considered thatthis was contrary to the principle of secularism by which she wished to bring up her children. Sheinformed the school of her position, referring to a Court of Cassation judgment of 2000, which hadfound the presence of crucifixes in polling stations to be contrary to the principle of the secularism ofthe State. In May 2002 the school’s governing body decided to leave the crucifixes in theclassrooms. A directive recommending such an approach was subsequently sent to all headteachers by the Ministry of State Education.On 23 July 2002 the applicant complained to the Veneto Regional Administrative Court about thedecision by the school’s governing body, on the ground that it infringed the constitutional principlesof secularism and of impartiality on the part of the public authorities. The Ministry of StateEducation, which joined the proceedings as a party, emphasised that the impugned situation wasprovided for by royal decrees of 1924 and 1928. On 14 January 2004 the administrative courtgranted the applicant’s request that the case be submitted to the Constitutional Court for anexamination of the constitutionality of the presence of a crucifix in classrooms. Before theConstitutional Court, the Government argued that such a display was natural, as the crucifix was notonly a religious symbol but also, as the “flag” of the only Church named in the Constitution (theCatholic Church), a symbol of the Italian State. On 15 December 2004 the Constitutional Court heldthat it did not have jurisdiction, on the ground that the disputed provisions were statutory rather thanlegislative. The proceedings before the administrative court were resumed, and on 17 March 2005that court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It held that the crucifix was both the symbol of Italianhistory 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, theConsiglio di Statodismissed the applicant’s appeal, on the ground that the cross had become oneof the secular values of the Italian Constitution and represented the values of civil life.

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:Fran§oiseTulkens(Belgium),

President,

IreneuCabral Barreto(Portugal),VladimiroZagrebelsky(Italy),DanutėJočienė(Lithuania),DragoljubPopović(Serbia),AndrásSajó(Hungary),IşılKarakaş(Turkey),

judges,

and SallyDollé,

Section Registrar.

Decision of the CourtThe presence of the crucifix – which it was impossible not to notice in the classrooms – could easilybe interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign and they would feel that they were beingeducated in a school environment bearing the stamp of a given religion. This could be encouragingfor 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 ofreligious services or religious education: it extended to practices and symbols which expressed abelief, a religion or atheism. This freedom deserved particular protection if it was the State whichexpressed a belief and the individual was placed in a situation which he or she could not avoid, orcould 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 tofoster critical thinking in pupils.The Court was unable to grasp how the display, in classrooms in State schools, of a symbol thatcould reasonably be associated with Catholicism (the majority religion in Italy) could serve theeducational pluralism that was essential to the preservation of a “democratic society” as that wasconceived 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 publicauthorities, and especially in classrooms, thus restricted the right of parents to educate theirchildren in conformity with their convictions, and the right of children to believe or not to believe. TheCourt concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 takenjointly with Article 9 of the Convention.***This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bindthe Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).Press contactsFrédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) orStefano 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 Rightswas set up in Strasbourg by the Council of EuropeMember States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human

exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judgesconsiders whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or aserious 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 ofthe three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.