CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

JAN MALÍŘ CYIL 14 (2023) professors before national courts. 119 Although containing “a certain degree of hyperbole”, these statements were not exaggerations which would exceed the limits of admissible criticism. 120 The ECtHR, thus, ruled Russia violated the ECHR because the interference in question was not “necessary in a democratic society” and was in breach of Article 10 ECHR. 121 The emphasize on the wide extent of the freedom to criticize in the context of academic freedom, perceptible from Sorguç v Turkey or Kharlamov v Russia, can, however, be contrasted with the very recent rulings in Krysztofiak v Poland. 122 In this case, an injunction was served on a professor who published texts criticizing the quality of education at Polish universities, including a private university, the Warsaw School of Arts. 123 As Professor’s texts allegedly harmed reputation of this private university and there were doubts as to his diligence when compiling his university rankings, the competent Polish court, by means of an injunction, prohibited Professor from disseminating any content which would damage the school’s good reputation for a period of one year. 124 After Professor failed to have the injunction set aside before national courts, it complained to the ECtHR, arguing the injunction equalled to a disproportionate interference with his freedom of expression. 125 This time, nonetheless, the ECtHR dealt with the application rather abruptly. Although it conceded the Professor’s statements were made in the context of a public debate about the quality of higher education in Poland, 126 these statements, albeit not scandalous, shocking or calumnious, “were nevertheless defamatory and, as such, had a negative impact on the commercial interests of the Warsaw School of Arts”, as protected under Article 8 ECHR. This, in the ECtHR’s view, implied “the school had a right to defend its commercial reputation” which signified that “[i]n this context, in addition to the public interest in open debate about the quality of higher education, there is a competing interest in protecting the commercial success and viability of commercial educational entities”. 127 Following a rather unusual exercise in balancing an interest in public debate on quality of universities with commercial interests of private entities doing “business” in the educational sector, the ECtHR specifically observed the prohibition resulting from the injunction in question was only temporary, Professor “was not completely barred from expressing opinions about the school in question”, the injunction imposed on him “was not on pain of a fine” and, last but not least, “legitimate doubt existed as to the applicant’s diligence, given that his rankings relied on a single assessment criterion”. 128 This lack of diligence was, in the ECtHR’s opinion, particularly important with respect to Professor’s argument over the disproportionate interference with his freedom of expression. As the ECtHR explained, even though “academic freedom is not restricted to scientific research, but also extends to academics’ freedom to express freely their views and opinions, even if controversial or unpopular”, 129 doubts over the diligence in

119 Ibidem. 120 Kharlamov v Russia (n 106) para 32. 121 Idem, paras 33–34. 122 Wojciech Krysztofiak v Poland, No. 15355/14, 26 April 2022. 123 Idem, para 2.

124 Idem, paras 3–5. 125 Idem, paras 6–13. 126 Idem, para 18. 127 Idem, para 19. 128 Idem, para 21. 129 Ibidem.

148