CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

JAN MALÍŘ CYIL 14 (2023) society by the ECtHR, 31 has been afforded a wide scope of application and, also, a rather high level of protection. Under such circumstances, freedom of expression, albeit not absolute in the ECHR, constitutes quite natural legal grounds on which to tackle issues related to academic freedom. Secondly, in a comparative perspective, it is not rare that disputes over academic freedom are settled in the context of freedom of expression or freedom of speech, as exemplified by the law of the USA. 32 Article 10 ECHR is not, however, the only provision relevant to academic freedom in the ECHR law. In this regard, Article 8 ECHR, enshrining the right for respect for private life, merits to be specifically mentioned. 33 The case-law of the ECtHR has already highlighted the significance the right to private life might play with regard to some aspects of academic freedom, as demonstrated by its ruling on video-surveillance at the university amphitheatres. 34 Only the future case-law will, however, reveal the precise potential of article 8 ECHR with respect to academic freedom. 35 Individual Freedom of Expression in Academic Context The most important category of cases, in which the ECtHR ruled on academic freedom, comprises cases in which freedom of expression of individual academics in a purely academic context was at stake, in particular, in which the so-called intramural speech was involved. 36 This is definitely not unexpected. While there seems to be a consensus that academic freedom is not identical with freedom of expression and, also, that it cannot be reduced to freedom of expression, 37 freedom of expression in the academic context is considered to constitute one of the core components of academic freedom both in international soft law 38 and, also, in most national legal systems. 39 In this respect, freedom of expression is closely related to freedom to teach and to transfer ideas and, last but not least, to freedom to disseminate the results of research. 40 The origins of the present case-law of the ECtHR on freedom of expression in intramural context can be traced back at least until the end of the 1990s. As early as in 1998, in Hertel v Switzerland, 41 the ECtHR criticized an injunction imposed by Swiss courts on a private researcher who had published an Article on the health 31 Handyside v United Kingdom, No. 5493/72, 7 December 1976, para 49. 32 E. Barendt (n 1) p. 174 et seq. 33 For a more in-depth treatment, see, inter alia, D. Harris, M. O’Boyle, E. Bates and C. Buckley (n 19) pp. 501–570. 34 Antović And Mirković v Montenegro, No. 70838/13, 28 November 2017. 35 Article 8 ECHR might play role in cases such as access to information or the protection of data, relevant in the context research and that of academic freedom. 36 On the distinction between intramural and extramural speech, see, in a comparative perspective, e. g., E. Barendt (n 1) pp. 270–296. 37 See e.g., E. Barendt (n 1) p. 15–22. 38 The UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-education Teaching Personnel (n 8) para 26. 39 See e.g., E. Barendt (n 1), p. 45 et seq. 40 See e.g., Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)7 on the responsibility of public authorities for academic freedom and institutional autonomy (n 15), para 5. 41 Hertel v Switzerland, No. 59/1997/843/1049, 25 August 1998. 2. Overview of the principal cases on academic freedom in the existing case-law of the ECtHR

138