Contenuti per la categoria: Simboli religiosi e abbigliamento

SOMMARIO: 1. Cenni introduttivi a proposito degli ordinamenti sportivi – 2. La rilevanza del fattore religioso nel diritto sportivo – 3. La FIFA tra divieto di discriminazione e assenza di ulteriori norme specifiche di rilevanza religiosa – 4. La neutralità UEFA. La previsione congiunta dei divieti di discriminazione e propaganda anche religiosa – 5. La FIGC e le statuizioni nella materia de qua . La punizione della blasfemia – 6. Conclusioni interlocutorie. La regola 4 delle Laws of the Game tra divieto di propaganda e permesso di indosso di copricapi religiosi.

Discrimination and religious propaganda in football law

ABSTRACT : After a brief review over sport legal system, the paper deals with the relationship between religion and sport, in a juridical perspective. First in general and then with regards of football at international, supranational and national level (FIFA; UEFA and FIGC), focusing on the ban of religious discrimination and the most recently interdiction of religious propaganda. Before concluding with some regards on the almost changed rules 4 of the “Laws of the Game” – that concurrently on the one hand allows head covers (hijab and turban) and on the other prohibits to reveal undergarments that show also religious slogans, statements or images, or advertising other than the manufacturer logo – the essay focuses on the peculiarity FIGC prescription to punish the use of blasphemy since 2010.

SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione – 2. Il velo integrale davanti alla Corte di Strasburgo – 3. I profili procedurali e la sussidiarietà – 4. La ratio della legge francese sul divieto di occultamento del viso – 5. La questione del margine di apprezzamento – 6. Il limite alla libertà di manifestare la religione derivante dalla “protezione dei diritti e delle libertà altrui” – 7. La Corte di Strasburgo “dietro” il velo: la “laïcité” e il suo riverberarsi sulla tutela del diritto di libertà di religione.

ABSTRACT: The French Law no. 2010-1192 of 11 October 2010, introduced the ban on wearing clothing designed to conceal one’s face in public places. Muslim women do not have the possibility of wearing the full-face veil ( burqa / niqab ) in public. The present article explores the question concerning whether the burqa ban is compatible with the democratic society in Europe and particularly with Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which guarantees the exercise of freedom of thought, conscience and religion. To do so, the paper critically analyzes a recent decision of the Strasbourg Court, S.A.S. v. France of July, the 1 st 2014. The Court held that the barrier raised against others by a veil concealing the face can be perceived as breaching the right of others to live in a space of socialisation which makes living together easier. The Author examines the issue considering various features of secularism and their effects on the different points of view regarding religious freedom.

SUMMARY: 1. Preliminary Remarks - 2. The veil before the European Court of Human Rights – 3. Religious Symbols in Article 9 ECHR case law and women’s religious freedom in Europe – 4. Islamic Symbols and European Institutions. Indirect Discrimination? – 5. Conclusive Remarks.

ABSTRACT: Religious freedom within Europe and the place of Islam within Europe are of particular contemporary interest. The focus of recent case law developed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has been on national laws which proscribe the wearing of religious symbols in certain aspects of the public sphere, and on the claims more generally to religious and cultural freedom of Muslim minorities in European states. Stepping back from these cases, this Article aims at a theoretical analysis of the subject, involving the contrast between value pluralism as a basis for religious freedom in international law, and other fundamental rights, i.e. women’s or children’s rights. By recognizing the intrinsic connection between individual rights and communal goods, value pluralism opens new pathways for enforcing human rights.

SOMMARIO: 1. Le nuove “guerre di religione”: tra credenti e noncredenti – 2. Lo spazio pubblico urbano: a) la posizione di simboli religiosi – 3. (segue:) b) la rimozione di simboli preesistenti – 4. Lo spazio pubblico istituzionale: rimozione e posizione di simboli religiosi - 5. Dal processo conflittuale a quello mediatorio – 6. Riflessi del processo di mediazione sui simboli religiosi.

Religious Symbols and Alternative Proceedings

ABSTRACT: Religious symbols are becoming the object of a new forum of the ancient religious wars: those between believers and nonbelievers instead of between different organized religions like in the past. The Author describes the numerous judgements that were passed in the last years by U.S. and European Courts with particular reference to two kinds of public space: roads, parks, ecc. and public buildings. But he points out that the the ordinary trial is ineffective for resolution of cultural and religious conflicts and holds the utility of an alternative proceeding: the mediation between believers and nonbelievers, always in respect of liberty of conscience for everyone.

SOMMARIO: 1. Il problema del simbolismo religioso sul luogo di lavoro – 2. La soluzione per la Giurisprudenza francese – 3. La soluzione per la Corte EDU – 4. Considerazioni conclusive.

ABSTRACT: The author of this paper comments some recent judgments of the French Cour de Cassation and of the European Court of Human Rights concerns the exercise of religious freedom in the workplace. The examination shows some critic aspects of this right in Europe .

SOMMARIO: 1. Premessa – 2. Il ruolo peculiare delle “confessioni” religiose – 3. Modalità distorsive di rilevazione degli interessi religiosi – 4. Particolarismo confessionale vs pluralismo religioso – 5. Il carattere “lobbistico” dello strumento pattizio – 6. Europa, governance e fattore religioso: il lobbying delle chiese e delle altre comunità di fede – 7. Il caso Lautsi c. Italia – 8. Conclusioni.

ABSTRACT: This article analyzes the role of religious groups in the national and European public spaces with a particular focus on their contribution to the new transformation taking place in the field of individual and collective participation to the common good. The main focus of the article deals with the legal and political condition under which religious groups try to advance their lobbying activities in Italy and in Europe.

SOMMAIRE: 1. Introduction – 2. Une évolution conceptuelle favorable aux employés: d’une logique d’exclusion à une logique de mise en balance – 3. Se vêtir au travail conformément à ses convictions religieuses: Un renforcement du droit des employés de manifester leur religion – 4. Agir au travail conformément à ses convictions religieux: Les oscillations européennes face à l’objection de conscience – 5. Conclusion – 6. Appendice. Jurisprudence liée.

ABSTRACT: In a landmark decision impatiently awaited across the Channel, the European Court of Human Rights provided clarifications on the employee right to manifest religious beliefs at work. The balance between employee rights and requirements of employers is not completely upset. But there has been an important new trend in the european reasoning, in regard to the free expression of religious belief. This will not be without consequence, especially in France where many contemporary debate echo the european solution.

SUMMARY: 1. On the religious significance of baptismal crosses and grounds for the need for Orthodox Christian believers to wear them – 2. On the illegitimate nature of the ban imposed by the state on the wearing of baptismal symbols of Christian religious affiliation – 3. Absence of any grounds for assessing the religious rite of wearing Christian baptismal crosses as a threat to public safety, public order, health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others – 4. The groundless emasculation, denial and reduction of the religious meaning and importance of Christian baptismal crosses.

SOMMARIO: 1. Libertà religiosa e libertà di educazione: note preliminari – 2. Consiglio d’Europa ed Unione Europea: la salvaguardia dei diritti dell’uomo e delle libertà fondamentali – 3. La Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo – 4. La funzione interpretativa della Corte nel diritto interno. In particolare, quale fonte integratrice del parametro interposto di costituzionalità ex art. 117, comma 1° Cost. – 5. Educazione e religione nella giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo. I rapporti familiari – 6. Libertà religiosa e libertà di educazione nel prisma della struttura scolastica. Le scuole confessionalmente orientate – 7. Gli insegnamenti obbligatori di religione – 8. I simboli religiosi – 9. In particolare, la “questione” del crocifisso (caso Lautsi c. Italia) – 10. Sintesi conclusiva.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of the paper consists in examining the cases submitted to the European Court of Human Rights in which religious freedom (art. 9 of European Convention of Human Rights) is, in a specific way, related to the right to education (art. 1 of Protocol 1). The fields where arise most important problems are as follows: family relationship, denominational Schools, compulsory denominational (confessional) instruction in Schools, religious symbols in State Schools. From the latest judgments at Strasbourg Court, it seems to emerge a new perspective of the principle of laicità, clearly open to social pluralism. As the Court stated concerning educative pluralism: “the possibility of pluralism in education […] is essential for the preservation of the “democratic society” as conceived by the Convention”.

SOMMARIO: 1. Premessa: alle origini del dibattito attuale - 2. La giurisprudenza della CEDU sui simboli religiosi - 3. La sentenza Lautsi e la sua ratio decidendi: a) Il crocifisso come simbolo passivo - 4. (segue) b) Il margine di apprezzamento dello Stato e le tradizioni nazionali - 5. (segue) c) La garanzia di un contesto pluralista e l’evoluzione del principio di laicità - 6. Gli effetti della  sentenza Lautsi sulla giurisprudenza della CEDU - 7. Gli effetti della sentenza Lautsi in Europa. a) Francia. b) Turchia. c) Germania. d) Paesi di tradizione ortodossa. e) Spagna - 8. Il caso italiano e il ruolo dello Stato nel sostegno ai simboli religiosi della tradizione - 9. La soluzione legislativa: pro e contro - 10. Osservazioni conclusive.

ABSTRACT: This paper examines the issue of religious symbols in the public spaces in the recent European experience. After some preliminary remarks about the origins of the present debate, comparing the American and European religious models, it focuses on the line of decisions of the ECHR in matters of religious symbols. In particular it takes the contents of the Lautsi judgement (2011) into consideration and evaluates its possible effects on the future decisions of the ECHR and of national courts of European countries like France, Turkey, Germany, countries of Orthodox tradition and Spain. In the end it makes some conclusive remarks about the Italian case and the role of the State in supporting the religious symbols of the tradition, examining the advantages and disadvantages of the legislative solution.