Crucifix resolution

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Crucifix resolution
Logo of the Federal Constitutional Court on its decisions
announced: May 16, 1995
Case designation: Constitutional complaints from underage pupils and legal guardians
Business sign: 1 BvR 1087/91
Reference: BVerfGE 93, 1
Follow-up story: Enactment of a new Bavarian Education Act 1995
Guiding principles
1. The installation of a cross or crucifix in the classrooms of a state compulsory school that is not a denominational school violates Article 4 (1) of the Basic Law.

2. Section 13 (1), third sentence, of the school regulations for elementary schools in Bavaria is incompatible with Article 4 (1) of the Basic Law and is void.

Judge
Henschel, Seidl, Grimm, Söllner, Kühling, Seibert, Jaeger, Haas
dissenting opinions : Seidl, Söllner and Haas
further dissenting opinions: Haas
Applied Law
Art. 4, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law , Section 13, Paragraph 1, Clause 3 of the School Regulations for Elementary Schools in Bavaria

Crucifix decision (colloquially also crucifix judgment ) is called the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of May 16, 1995, with which parts of the Bavarian elementary school regulations of 1983 were declared unconstitutional and null and void, according to which a crucifix or at least a crucifix in every classroom of the elementary schools in Bavaria a Latin cross was to be attached.

A decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) of November 3, 2009 is also referred to as the crucifix judgment . In 2011 the ECHR revised this judgment to the effect that crucifixes in schools do not violate any fundamental rights.

facts

Three pupils and their parents who were followers of the anthroposophical worldview made complaints . The court saw the unrestricted freedom of religion and belief of the students granted by the Basic Law (GG) under Art. 4 GG violated, here the so-called negative freedom of belief. The simple (state) legislature should not intervene in them within the framework of the fundamental rights barriers that otherwise often exist . In addition, the court emphasized that the state not only has a religious duty of neutrality under the constitution ( Art. 4 GG and Art. 140 GG, Art. 137 (1) Weimar Constitution , WRV). Rather, he could not himself invoke religious freedom or a certain worldview (in this case the Christian one), since a state as such can neither belong to a religion nor claim basic rights for itself.

central message

The crucifix decision is significant for the legal development in Germany because the Constitutional Court formulated concrete principles for the practice of neutrality in schools:

  • Neutrality through self-restriction , according to which the state in the sense of the above Criteria are not allowed to take an ideological position themselves, as a citizen usually does as a holder of fundamental rights,
  • Neutrality through plurality , according to which the state should tolerate and promote the coexistence of religions in the light of tolerant and mutual acceptance,
  • no neutrality through sterility , according to which the state is not completely indifferent to world views or prohibits its employees from any religious activity. (This was continued in the result of the later headscarf decision , but was restricted in details.)

Detailed statements

  • The Christian cross is not a purely cultural symbol and is not an over-religious symbol of humanity or mercy . It is the symbol of a particular religion.
  • Art. 4 GG protects against the fact that the citizen isexposed to the influence of a certain beliefin a state created compulsory room ( compulsory schooling ) without being able to evade it.
  • The basic right of religious freedom also applies without restriction to persons in special legal relationships such as schoolchildren.
  • In the case of children under the age of 14 who cannot invoke religious freedom (cf. § 5 RelKErzG ), the “cross in the school” violates the parents' freedom to raise their children in accordance with a certain worldview ( Art. 6 Abs. 2 GG - freedom of education).
  • The religious freedom of students and the educational right of parents to each other is a "careful balancing" in accordance with the principles of practical concordance bring.
  • Since such a “gentle compensation” is not possible in this case and the religious beliefs of some pupils must not be forced upon the other pupils, crosses in schools that are not denominational schools fundamentally violate the Basic Law.

Consequences of the decision

Demonstration against the Karlsruhe crucifix judgment in 1995 in Munich

The crucifix decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, which was published on August 10, 1995, has remained largely without practical consequences to this day. According to the will of the Bavarian government, the cross in the classroom should continue to be the norm. Only in special, justified "atypical exceptional cases" should it be suspended in response to individual complaints. After Section 13, Paragraph 1, Clause 3 of the school regulations for elementary schools in Bavaria was declared null and void, the Bavarian government adopted a new law on December 23, 1995 (GVBl. 850) in the Bavarian Education and Teaching Act, Art. 7 Paragraph 4 inserted. Sentence 1 reads: "In view of Bavaria's historical and cultural character, a cross is placed in every classroom."

The Bavarian Constitutional Court rejected popular claims against this law on August 1, 1997 on the grounds that there was no violation of the Bavarian constitution because the law provided for a solution to the conflict. The Federal Constitutional Court has not accepted constitutional complaints against this decision for decision. The Federal Administrative Court has ruled that there is a reasonable and non-discriminatory alternative for those who think differently if the requirements for the reason for the objection are not exceeded.

On January 2, 2002, the Bavarian Administrative Court granted the complaint of the teacher Konrad Riggenmann and obliged the Free State of Bavaria to have the cross removed in the classrooms in which the teacher teaches (3 B 98.563). The court assessed this matter as an atypical individual case.

In another case, on August 14, 2008, the Augsburg Administrative Court dismissed the action brought by a teacher who requested the hanging of the crosses in the classrooms where he teaches. The court was not convinced that the cross in the classroom caused the teacher to suffer severe emotional stress that justified an exception.

Crucifix judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

In the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights of November 3, 2009, Italy was sentenced to pay compensation to a plaintiff for failing to remove crucifixes from her children's school. This judgment was overturned on March 18, 2011 by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, as the installation of the crucifix does not constitute a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Crosses in classrooms did not violate freedom of religion. It cannot be proven that a crucifix on the wall has any influence on the students, even if it is primarily a religious symbol.

The ECHR made it clear that in principle it had to respect the decisions of the states in the field of education and instruction. This also applies to the importance they attach to religion "provided that these decisions do not lead to any form of indoctrination ". The “dominant visibility” of the Christian “majority religion” in the Italian school environment is not, however, indoctrination. Because a crucifix attached to the wall must be regarded as "a symbol that is essentially passive". The judgments of the European Court of Human Rights refer to individual cases, but all 47 countries of the Council of Europe have committed to respect them.

See also

literature

  • Gary S. Schaal: The “Crucifix Resolution” and its consequences . In: Robert Chr. Van Ooyen, Martin Möllers (Hrsg.): The Federal Constitutional Court in the political system . VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2006, ISBN 3-531-14762-5 , pp. 175-186.
  • Ermano Geuer: The crucifix decision of the ECHR . Verwaltungsrundschau 2011, p. 259 ff.

Web links

Footnotes

Remarks

  1. ↑ Wording of § 13 Paragraph 1 VSO: “The school supports the legal guardians in the religious education of the children. School prayer, school worship and school devotion are possibilities of this support. A cross must be placed in each classroom. Teachers and students are obliged to respect everyone's religious feelings. "
  2. ↑ Wording of Art. 7 Para. 4 BayEUG: In view of the historical and cultural character of Bavaria, a cross is placed in every classroom. This expresses the will to realize the highest educational goals of the constitution on the basis of Christian and Western values ​​while preserving freedom of belief. If the attachment of the cross is contradicted by the parent or guardian for serious and obvious reasons of faith or worldview, the headmaster tries to find an amicable settlement. If an agreement does not succeed, he has to make a regulation for the individual case after informing the education authority, which respects the religious freedom of the opponent and brings the religious and ideological convictions of all concerned in the class to a fair balance; the will of the majority must also be taken into account as far as possible.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ CASE OF LAUTSI AND OTHERS v. ITALY , judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of November 3, 2009 in the case of Soile Lautsi / Italy - 30814/06. Accessed January 26, 2018 at hudoc.echr.coe.int
  2. ↑ Crucifixes in Europe's schools are legal. In: time online. March 18, 2011, accessed April 29, 2018 .
  3. ^ Robert Chr. Van Ooyen, Martin HW Möllers (Ed.): The Federal Constitutional Court in the Political System . VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2006, ISBN 3-531-14762-5 , pp. 175 ( limited preview in Google Book Search [accessed January 13, 2017]).
  4. ↑ An overview of case law - examples from case law - 13. School law a) . At bayern.verfassungsgerichtshof.de, accessed on January 26, 2018;
    Reasons for the decision of August 1, 1997 (VerfGHE 50, 156) ( PDF , approx. 225 KB). At justiz.bayern.de, accessed on January 26, 2018
  5. ↑ Decision of October 27, 1997, 1 BvR 1604/97 and other decision of October 27, 1997 - 1 BvR 1604/97 . On bverfg.de, accessed on January 26, 2018 ( Document as PDF (approx. 88 KB). On bundesverfassungsgericht.de, accessed on January 26, 2018)
  6. ↑ Successful protest against crucifix in the classroom. (No longer available online.) Bverwg.de, April 21, 1999, archived from the original on May 3, 2010 ; Retrieved on January 26, 2018 (press release No. 21/1999 on the judgment of April 21, 1999 (BVerwG 6 C 18.98)).
  7. ^ VG Augsburg · Judgment of August 14, 2008 · Az. Au 2 K 07.347 . On openjur.de, accessed on January 26, 2018
  8. ↑ Carl Joseph Hering, Hubert Lenz, Manfred Baldus , Stefan Muckel (eds.): Decisions in church matters since 1946 . tape 55 . De Gruyter, Berlin / Boston 2014, ISBN 978-3-11-030905-8 , pp. 442 ( 2 - cross in the classroom in google book search). ;
    The crosses stick . On August 14, 2008 from spiegel.de, accessed on January 26, 2018
  9. ↑ Benedikt Kommenda: Judges ban crosses from Italy's classes . On November 3, 2009 from diepresse.com, accessed on January 26, 2018
  10. ↑ a b Crucifixes allowed in schools . On March 19, 2011 from nachrichten.rp-online.de, accessed on January 26, 2018