header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
23 June 2011 / Susan Nash
Issue: 7471 / Categories: Features , Child law , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Class action

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Susan Nash navigates the latest human rights twists & turns

Relying on Art 2 of Protocol No 1 (right to education) and Art 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), the applicants in Lautsi v Italy (App No 30814/06) complained that religious symbols in classrooms were incompatible with the state’s obligation to respect the right of parents to ensure education was in accordance with their own religious and philosophical convictions. Following a Directive from the Italian Minister of Education, Universities and Research, school governors were required to put crucifixes in classrooms. The national court held that this did not breach the secular nature of the state but symbolised principles and values which formed the foundation of democracy and western civilisation. In a Grand Chamber judgment, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) observed that the obligation on member states to respect religious and philosophical convictions of parents applied not only to the content of teaching but also to the exercise of all the functions which they assumed in relation to education, including the school environment.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll