Another sensationalistic article on behalf of the BBC (no wonder). The boys and girls in the Greek department of "the Helsinki Watch" tried to stir things up for publicity. The judges ruled out that when it comes to ethos and customs, court is unqualified to hear the case. Therefore, crucifixes (and icons) stay in classrooms.
Here is an up-to-date report, 21 January 2010.
"The European Parliament will not be voting on the European Court of Human Rights decision to ban crucifixes in Italian classrooms..."
A google.com search reveals no information that the European Court has reversed or abandoned its decision. Instead there are reports in the last few days of various European countries taking action to appeal the ban. Could you provide more information? It will be wonderful to see evidence that this decision has been annulled.
I apologise, I think I misunderstood. The Greek department of the Helsinki Watch, immediately after the ECHR ruling (Complaint Nr 30814/06, Lautsi vs Italy
) that forbade the use of religious symbols in Italian classrooms, was made public, tried to take advantage of the situation and made a complaint to the Athens three-member Court of Appeals which called for a similar ruling to be applied to Greece too. The 3 Greek
judges ruled out that when it comes to ethos and customs, Court of Appeals is unqualified to hear the case (nullum crimen sine lege: there's no crime without law). Therefore, crucifixes (and icons) stay in classrooms. The Lautsi case was also brought for discussion into the European Parliament (by the European Left and the Greens who tried to pass it as law in the European Union). Surprise-surprise, by a vast majority, the attempt by the members of the Left and the Greens, failed. The EP voted against even to discuss it. So, it's up to each country-member of the EU, either to comply or to appeal. I'm pretty sure that Italy and Poland, perhaps Eire too, will appeal against the November 3, ECHR decision (I do not know what Greece & Cyprus will do. I think we will "silently" encourage non-compliance).