Suchergebnisse

The commentary analyses the interim order of the Council of State of 18 May 2020 in the case of M.W. and Others, declaring the maintenance – during the first phase of the relaxation of the quarantine restrictions – of the ban on meetings and assemblies in places of worship, with the exception of funeral ceremonies involving up to 20 people, to be a serious and obviously unlawful infringement of freedom of religion. A counterpoint to this analysis is the preceding presentation of European law regulations and the position of the reference European courts on this subject.

The Crucifix in the Public School Classroom in European Court RulingsLautsi v. Italy was an important court case that was brought before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The subsequent ruling on 3 November 2009 noted that the display of religious symbols (i.e. the crucifix in Italian public school classrooms) is contrary to Article 2 of the 1st Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights. This decision, which went against Italy, is in line with other judgments in similar cases, and seems to be promoting the European public school as a place of confessional neutrality, where the goal is to cultivate secular values of a democratic society in pupils.The European Court of Human Rights thus clearly supports the idea and principles of secularism and the impartiality of the state. However, the ruling did not impose any obligation to undertake adequate legal solutions or verify the existing law, leaving each member state a level of freedom to make opinions and final decisions on their own. The Lautsi v. Italy judgment had an indirect influence on the entire public service sphere, of which the public school is just one link of a chain. Yet Italy filed an appeal and the case was referred to the Court's Grand Chamber. Its hearing is to be held on 30 June 2010. The legal ramifications of this ruling therefore remain an important debate in Europe.

The Crucifix in the Public School Classroom in European Court RulingsLautsi v. Italy was an important court case that was brought before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The subsequent ruling on 3 November 2009 noted that the display of religious symbols (i.e. the crucifix in Italian public school classrooms) is contrary to Article 2 of the 1st Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights. This decision, which went against Italy, is in line with other judgments in similar cases, and seems to be promoting the European public school as a place of confessional neutrality, where the goal is to cultivate secular values of a democratic society in pupils.The European Court of Human Rights thus clearly supports the idea and principles of secularism and the impartiality of the state. However, the ruling did not impose any obligation to undertake adequate legal solutions or verify the existing law, leaving each member state a level of freedom to make opinions and final decisions on their own. The Lautsi v. Italy judgment had an indirect influence on the entire public service sphere, of which the public school is just one link of a chain. Yet Italy filed an appeal and the case was referred to the Court's Grand Chamber. Its hearing is to be held on 30 June 2010. The legal ramifications of this ruling therefore remain an important debate in Europe.

Referring to arguments of a dogmatic-doctrinal nature, pointing to successive substantive-legal solutions and, finally, citing the conclusions of jurisprudential practice (national courts, ECHR, CJEU), the author points to the progressive secularisation of labour law in the French Republic. This secularisation has already completely embraced the public sphere and is now also encroaching more and more dynamically on the scope of labour relations in private enterprises.

The article provides a critical analysis of three individual notification opinions issued by the UN Human Rights Committee in July 2018 on the compatibility of existing regulations in States parties (France, Turkey) on bans on wearing religious symbols with the freedom to manifest religion guaranteed by Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Moreover, the text points out the dichotomy – in terms of content – of positions on this issue between the universal body and the regional reference body (the European Court of Human Rights) and also addresses such systemic issues as the problem of legal force of the Committee's opinions, the lack of dialogue or even isolationism of international bodies ruling on human rights, or the dispute over the primacy of their decisions.