So far, cases about the Christian cross have not taken as much space in the European Court of Human rights case-law as cases about other religious signs such as the Islamic headscarf and the Sikh turban. This article analyses the Grand Chamber decision in the famous Lautsi case, which rules that the compulsory display of crucifixes in Italian classrooms is compatible with Article 2 of the first additional Protocol to the Convention, and the very recent Eweida and others case, which finds that a prohibition to wear jewellery, including crucifixes, in the workplace, could constitute a violation of article 9 of the Convention if it is not proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued by the employer. It is at first sight difficult to compare these two rulings and to come to general conclusions on their potential impact on the Court’s case-law on religious signs. Lautsi might be perceived as an evolution compared to previous case law, characterised by a benevolent attitude towards bans on religious signs justified by State neutrality and secularism. But the Grand Chamber’s decision seems in fact quite consistent with the Court’s passivity towards bans on religious signs. In Eweida, the Court takes a more active approach and does not hide behind the margin of appreciation. The factual specificity of the case however limits the decision’s scope. Article in French