CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

CYIL 14 (2023) THE EUROPEAN COURT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM conduct research and distribute knowledge and truth without restriction” 55 . As the ECtHR ruled in extension, freedom of expression related to academic freedom is not “restricted to academic or scientific research” but it also extends “to the academics’ freedom to express freely their views and opinions, even if controversial or unpopular, in the areas of their research, professional expertise and competence”. 56 Thus freedom may also “include an examination of the functioning of public institutions in a given political system, and a criticism thereof.” 57 With these specific circumstances in mind, the ECtHR ruled Professor Erdogan’s article “concerned an important and topical issue in a democratic society which the public had a legitimate interest in being informed of” which meant that “the Article in question contributed to a debate of general interest.” 58 Although “some of the language and expressions used in the Article in question … were harsh” and “could be perceived as offensive”, 59 overall, they were “mostly, value judgments, coloured by the author’s own political and legal opinions and perceptions” 60 which, furthermore, were published in a quasi-academic quarterly “as opposed to a popular newspaper”. 61 As the ECtHR noted as well, even though the Judiciary must be protected from destructive attacks which are essentially unfounded, “courts … are not immune from criticism and scrutiny.” 62 In this light, the ECtHR concluded “the interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression was not based on sufficient reasons to show that the interference complained of was necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation and rights of others.” 63 Consequently, it found the claim over violation of Article 10 ECHR to be substantiated. The Erdogan v Turkey decision is significant in several aspects. Firstly, it demonstrates that where individual academics exercise their freedom of expression in order to convey information or ideas which they have arrived at within their field of expertise, especially, in a direct link to their research or to their teaching, the scope of their freedom of expression is particularly wide. This is all the more so when information or ideas are conveyed in the context of a debate of general interest, including a debate on the functioning of public institutions. In these cases, freedom of expression of individual academics benefits from a rather strong protection and the restrictions on this freedom can be justified only exceptionally. Secondly, Erdogan v Turkey shows that freedom of expression in intramural context extends even to information or ideas which, in terms of their form or content, may offend, shock or disturb or which are controversial, as long as they do not lack a sufficient basis in facts or constitute mere insults. As a result, the scope of freedom of expression is extended even further. Thirdly, freedom of expression is particularly wide where information or ideas are disseminated in academic fora or through the academic press. Fourthly, freedom of expression shall be normally given the decisive weight where the conflict with other protected rights or values arises in the intramural context.

55 Idem, para 40. 56 Ibidem. 57 Ibidem. 58 Mustafa Erdoğan and Others v Turkey (n 50) para 41. 59 Idem, para 44. 60 Ibidem. 61 Mustafa Erdoğan and Others v Turkey (n 50) para 45.

62 Idem, para 44. 63 Idem, para 46.

141