header-logo header-logo

23 June 2011 / Susan Nash
Issue: 7471 / Categories: Features , Child law , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Class action

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll