CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

JAN MALÍŘ

CYIL 14 (2023)

Individual Freedom of Expression in Academic Context: Extramural speech The ECtHR has been also called upon to deal with academic freedom in the context of what is usually designated as extramural speech, or statements made by individual academics on issues of public concern, including general political and social affairs, outside purely academic fora, irrespective of whether these statements are made within their area of expertise or “off-topic”. 64 Even in this context, freedom of expression applies. This can be illustrated by the ECtHR’s ruling in Kula v Turkey. 65 In this case, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Mr. Kula, professor of translation at a Turkish university, after he had taken part in a debate on cultural identity of the EU and that of Turkey broadcasted on TV without, however, having obtained a priori authorisation from his university. 66 Professor Kula’s participation in the debate was subsequently qualified as a disciplinary offence and, although the original disciplinary sanction was commuted into a simple reprimand, 67 Professor Kula tried to have the reprimand set aside before national courts. When he failed, 68 he complained to the ECtHR, claiming that several of his rights and freedoms enshrined in the ECHR, including freedom of expression, were breached. Although the Turkish Government contested there was a violation of his freedom of expression, because, in its view, the disciplinary sanction was not related to Professor’s statements but the breach of a duty not to leave the city of residence without the permission, binding on all civil servants, 69 the ECtHR insisted freedom of expression was at stake in the circumstances of the case. 70 As the ECtHR emphasized, “however minimal the sanction … imposed on the applicant … it was liable to have an impact on the exercise of his freedom of expression and even to have a chilling effect in that regard.” 71 In this light, under the ECtHR’s view, thus, there was an interference with Professor’s freedom of expression. 72 In reaching this conclusion, the ECHR highlighted the fact that Professor’s complaint “relates essentially to the exercise by the applicant of his right to freely express his views as an academic during a television programme organised outside his city of residence.” 73 That meant academic freedom was involved which, under the ECtHR, should encompass 64 There seems to be a notable difference in how various authors perceive extramural speech; while in the English speaking countries, extramural speech is mostly understood as speech on general political, and social issues, made basically off-topic and irrespective of where the speech is made, see e.g., E. Barendt (n 1) pp. 270–271, in continental Europe, there is a tendency to define extramural speech as internal utterances or communication of individual academics intended for medias or the general public and made within the academics’ field of expertise; extramural speech is simultaneously distinguished from off-topic speech, i. e. speech made outside the field of expertise of individual academics, see e.g., VRIELINK, J., LEMMENS, P., PARMENTIER, S., Academic Freedom As A Fundamental Right, LERU Advice Paper No.6 – December 2010, Retrieved 1 March 2023, p. 16, https://www.leru.org/files/Academic-Freedom-as-a-Fundamental-Right-Full-paper.pdf. These differences seem to justify concerns over the precise understanding of at least some notable aspects of academic freedom, as expressed by PRELEC, T., FURSTENBERG, S., HEATHERSHAW, J. and THOMSON, C. (n 2). 65 Kula v Turkey, No. 20233/06, 19 June 2018.

66 Idem, paras 6–13. 67 Idem, paras 17–18. 68 Idem, paras 19–22. 69 Idem, paras 34–35. 70 Idem, para 30. 71 Idem, para 39. 72 Idem, paras 52–53. 73 Idem, para 38.

142