Children’s Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief, Parents’ Right to Education and the Right to Family Life : Recent Trends in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights · This article examines the background and the legal reasoning of the ruling T.C. v. Italy, delivered by the ECtHR on the issue of parental religious education and the right to family life. The domestic courts’ order to the applicant, a Jehovah’s Witness, to refrain from actively involving his daughter in his religious practices, was upheld by the Strasbourg Court, which found no violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention. The Court held the view that the measure had been taken in the child’s best interests and was aimed solely at preserving her freedom of choice. The comment focuses upon two main questions. Firstly, from the standpoint of children’s rights, it shall be favourably noted that the Court’s finding put the child’s best interests as a primary consideration in an issue related to family life. Secondly, it will be argued that the case would have been more appropriately decided within the framework of Article 9, since the controversy refers more to freedom of religion than to family life. Had the Court applied Article 9 instead of Article 8, it would have clarified its viewpoint on how children’s freedom of religion and parental religious educational rights may be rightly balanced.
Questo articolo esamina il contesto e gli argomenti giuridici della sentenza T.C. v. Italy, pronunciata dalla Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo sulla questione dell'educazione religiosa dei genitori e del diritto alla vita familiare. L'ordine impartito dai tribunali nazionali al ricorrente, testimone di Geova, di astenersi dal coinvolgere attivamente sua figlia nelle proprie pratiche religiose, è stato confermato dalla Corte di Strasburgo, che non ha riscontrato alcuna violazione dell'articolo 14 in combinato disposto con l'articolo 8 della Convenzione. La Corte ha ritenuto che la misura sia stata adottata nel migliore interesse della bambina e che miri unicamente a preservare la sua libertà di scelta. Il commento si concentra su due questioni principali. In primo luogo, dal punto di vista dei diritti del minore, va notato favorevolmente che la sentenza della Corte ha posto l'interesse superiore come considerazione primaria in una questione relativa alla vita familiare. In secondo luogo, si sosterrà che il caso sarebbe stato deciso in modo forse più appropriato nel quadro dell'articolo 9, poiché la controversia si riferisce alla libertà di religione molto più che alla vita familiare. Se la Corte avesse applicato l'articolo 9 al posto dell'articolo 8, avrebbe inoltre chiarito il proprio punto di vista su come la libertà religiosa dei bambini e i diritti educativi dei genitori in materia religiosa possano essere correttamente bilanciati.
Libertà religiosa dei minori, diritti educativi dei genitori e vita familiare: recenti sviluppi nella giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti umani
Silvia Angeletti
2023
Abstract
Children’s Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief, Parents’ Right to Education and the Right to Family Life : Recent Trends in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights · This article examines the background and the legal reasoning of the ruling T.C. v. Italy, delivered by the ECtHR on the issue of parental religious education and the right to family life. The domestic courts’ order to the applicant, a Jehovah’s Witness, to refrain from actively involving his daughter in his religious practices, was upheld by the Strasbourg Court, which found no violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention. The Court held the view that the measure had been taken in the child’s best interests and was aimed solely at preserving her freedom of choice. The comment focuses upon two main questions. Firstly, from the standpoint of children’s rights, it shall be favourably noted that the Court’s finding put the child’s best interests as a primary consideration in an issue related to family life. Secondly, it will be argued that the case would have been more appropriately decided within the framework of Article 9, since the controversy refers more to freedom of religion than to family life. Had the Court applied Article 9 instead of Article 8, it would have clarified its viewpoint on how children’s freedom of religion and parental religious educational rights may be rightly balanced.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
