The Meaning of Religious Symbols after the Grand Chamber Judgment in Lautsi v. Italy

Abstract

This Comment concerns the question whether there now exists a right of Member States parallel to the individual right to thought, conscience and religion under Article 9 and analyses the consistency of this potential development with the existing jurisprudence mandating state neutrality and impartiality. The Comment then considers the similarities and differences between manifesting a belief and symbolic speech, and the consequentially permissible restrictions that may be imposed. It will conclude by suggesting that the Grand Chamber erred in its determination of the crucifix as ‘an essentially passive symbol’ and had failed to consider this question holistically.