The paper deals with the famous case Lautsi v. Italy at the European Court of Human Rights, on crucifixes in the public schools, with two opposite Court rulings in 2009 and 2011. While analyzing the logic of both rulings, the author explores two interacting concepts: „margin of appreciation“ and «neutrality». He believes, at the first ruling of 2009 the Court practice of margin of appreciation was ignored, and the principle of neutrality was imposed; while the second ruling, trying to introduce correction in this sense, made other mistakes by drawing upon disputable factual and normative argumentation. The case of crucifix thus reveals tensions between national legal systems and the conventional and European Law. Overall, today, cases about religious symbols in the public square serve as a medium for the European community to reflect upon its identity and the role of religion in this identity.
Русский