http://almacendederecho.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Logo-Almacen-de-Derecho-300x871.png

viernes, 18 de marzo de 2011

EL TRIBUNAL EUROPEO DE DERECHOS HUMANOS DECLARA QUE NO SE INFRINGE NI EL DERECHO DE LOS PADRES A ELEGIR LA EDUCACIÓN QUE QUIEREN PARA SUS HIJOS NI LA LIBERTAD RELIGIOSA DE ESTOS PORQUE HAYA CRUCIFIJOS EN LAS AULAS DE LOS COLEGIOS PÚBLICOS

Gracias, Pablo, por la indicación
La Gran Sala (por 15 a 2) ha publicado hoy la sentencia. El argumento básico es que no se deduce del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos un consenso acercar de la cuestión por lo que los jueces prefieren (judicial restraint) respetar el margen de apreciación que atribuyen a los Estados en la organización de la escuela. Dado que el derecho alegado es el de los padres a que sus hijos reciban la educación moral y religiosa de su elección y la libertad para no profesar una religión, la ponderación (el crucifijo es un símbolo “pasivo” y que no implica adoctrinamiento y se corresponde no solo con la religión mayoritaria sino también con una tradición histórica y cultural) conduce a dar margen a los Estados para que decidan lo que les parezca al respecto.
the obligation laid on Contracting States by the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 concerns (not) only the content of school curricula, but also) … the organisation of the school environment where domestic law attributes that function to the public authorities.
68.  The Court takes the view that the decision whether or not to perpetuate a tradition falls in principle within the margin of appreciation of the respondent State. The Court must moreover take into account the fact that Europe is marked by a great diversity between the States of which it is composed, particularly in the sphere of cultural and historical development. It emphasises, however, that the reference to a tradition cannot relieve a Contracting State of its obligation to respect the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention and its Protocols.
69.  The fact remains that the Contracting States enjoy a margin of appreciation in their efforts to reconcile exercise of the functions they assume in relation to education and teaching with respect for the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions (see paragraphs 61-62 above).
70.  The Court concludes in the present case that the decision whether crucifixes should be present in State-school classrooms is, in principle, a matter falling within the margin of appreciation of the respondent State. Moreover, the fact that there is no European consensus on the question of the presence of religious symbols in State schools speaks in favour of that approach.
71.  In that connection, it is true that by prescribing the presence of crucifixes in State-school classrooms – a sign which, whether or not it is accorded in addition a secular symbolic value, undoubtedly refers to Christianity – the regulations confer on the country's majority religion preponderant visibility in the school environment.
72.  Furthermore, a crucifix on a wall is an essentially passive symbol and this point is of importance in the Court's view, particularly having regard to the principle of neutrality. It cannot be deemed to have an influence on pupils comparable to that of didactic speech or participation in religious activities.

No hay comentarios:

Archivo del blog