CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

CYIL 14 (2023) THE EUROPEAN COURT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM risks associated with the preparation of food in microwaves and who did so in a semi-popular journal. Although the ECtHR admitted freedom of expression is not absolute and can be restricted, it observed “[th]e effect of the injunction was … partly to censor the applicant’s work and substantially to reduce his ability to put forward in public views which have their place in a public debate whose existence cannot be denied”. 42 As no measurable effect on the sale of microwave ovens was proven and the impact of the published ideas was limited by the specific readership of the journal in question, the ECtHR concluded the injunction could not be said to have been necessary in a democratic society. That implied the violation of Article 10 ECHR. Significantly, the ECtHR also observed that “[i]t matters little that … opinion is a minority one and may appear to be devoid of merit since, in a sphere in which it is unlikely that any certainty exists, it would be particularly unreasonable to restrict freedom of expression only to generally accepted ideas.” 43 The ECtHR’s statements, thus, suggested that freedom of expression benefits not only the generally accepted ideas and opinions but, also, the minority opinions as long as they are reasonably based on verifiable facts. Shortly afterwards, in Wille v Liechtenstein, 44 the ECtHR dealt with a rather spectacular application brought by Herbert Wille, the former President of the Administrative Court of Liechtenstein. He claimed that, following his lecture, pleading for the wide and rather liberal reading of the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court of Liechtenstein, delivered at the Liechtenstein Research Institute, the ruling Prince of Liechtenstein failed to re-appoint him because he found Mr. Wille insufficiently committed to upholding the Constitution. This, in Mr. Wille’s view, constituted violation of his freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR, the view which the ECtHR, upon closer enquiry, upheld. The truth is that the ECtHR preferred to deal with the case under the principles pertaining to freedom of expression of members of the Judiciary. However, in a response to Mr. Wille’s argument over the fact that his statements were academic comments concerning the interpretation of the Constitution of Liechtenstein, made in the academic context, and not in the exercise of his judicial office, 45 the ECtHR observed that his lecture did form “part of a series of academic lectures at a Liechtenstein research institute”. 46 In addition, the ECtHR specifically noted the opinions Mr. Wille expressed could not have been regarded as an untenable proposition 47 and that questions of constitutional law, by their very nature, have political implications which, however, shall not per se prevent citizens from making any statements on these questions. 48 These conclusions suggested the ECtHR would be sensitive to arguments over the freedom of academic speech in intramural context. Based on these early cases, the ECtHR gradually developed principles which should apply to freedom of expression in intramural context. 49 These principles were later summarized

42 Ibidem. 43 Ibidem. 44 Wille v Liechtenstein, No. 28396/95, 28 October 1999.

45 Idem, para 66. 46 Idem, para 65. 47 Idem, para 67. 48 Ibidem.

49 Cox v Turkey, no. 2933/03, no. 2933/03, 20 May 2010 (interference with freedom of expression resulting from the ban on the re-entry of an university lecturer, a foreign national, to Turkey, following conversations with her students and colleagues and containing statements which, under the Turkish authorities, raised national security concerns); Sapan v Turkey, No. 44102/04, 8 June 2010 (a case in which the ECtHR considered as

139