SOMMAIRE: 1. Introduction – 2. Les contraintes de conventionalité et la liberté étatique dans l’organisation de l’environnement scolaire: une articulation délicate pour les symboles religieux – 2.1. La soumission de l’aménagement de l’environnement scolaire à un minimum de contraintes de conventionalité – 2.2. La diversité européenne, source d’une large marge d’appréciation au profit des États – 3. Le principe conventionnel de neutralité: entre acrobaties jurisprudentielles et affaiblissement substantiel – 3.1. La minoration contestable de l’impact des crucifix exposés dans les salles de classe – 3.2. Que reste-t-il du principe de neutralité religieuse en matière scolaire? – 4. La portée du revirement.

ABSTRACT: In a particularly sensitive context, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has finally decided to reverse the solution adopted by the Chamber about the famous case Lautsi v. Italy (ECtHR, 2nd Sect. November 3, 2009, Lautsi v. Italy , Appl. No. 30814/06 – ADL’s November 3, 2009). By a majority of fifteen votes against two, the Grand Chamber refuses to condemn Italy for the presence of crucifixes in classrooms of its schools. Receptive to criticism of the solution in 2009, the Court decided to grant broad freedom to States regarding the presence of religious symbols in the school environment. But doing so, she carries out some acrobatics reasoning and reduces principle of neutrality. Lautsi v. Italy , Appl. No. 30814/06 – ADL’s November 3, 2009). By a majority of fifteen votes against two, the Grand Chamber refuses to condemn Italy for the presence of crucifixes in classrooms of its schools. Receptive to criticism of the solution in 2009, the Court decided to grant broad freedom to States regarding the presence of religious symbols in the school environment. But doing so, she carries out some acrobatics reasoning and reduces principle of neutrality.