CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

CYIL 14 (2023) THE EUROPEAN COURT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM for publications of serious public concern”, or, in other words, “the exercise of this freedom carries with it ‘duties and responsibilities’ which also apply to research publications”. 144 Subsequently, the ECtHR drew a parallel between academic expression and journalism, arguing the same considerations must apply to both journalism and the publication of results of academic research. In this respect, it specifically noted that, in its case-law on freedom of expression of journalists, “the safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism”. 145 On these grounds, the ECtHR noticed that objective deficiencies were contained in the sociologist’s monograph, including unsubstantiated claims over racist opinions of the person in question, and it also observed there were confusions over the identity of that person in one part of the monograph. Under these circumstances, the ECtHR concluded the interest in protecting the reputation of the person in question clearly outweighed the academic’s freedom of expression and dismissed the sociologist’s application as manifestly ill-founded. 146 Lunde v Norway, thus, demonstrated that the exercise of freedom of expression, even in the context where academic freedom is invoked, must be accountable and that this accountability is basically related to the existence of a good faith on the part of the individual academic, linked, in turn, to the presence of the intention to provide accurate and reliable information. More recently, the role of a good faith in assessing academic accountability was highlighted in Aksu v Turkey. 147 The truth is that, in this case, the application to the ECtHR was primarily brought on the grounds of Article 8 ECHR. This was due to the fact that the applicant, a member of the Roma population in Turkey, claimed an interference with his Roma identity and his private life, allegedly resulting, inter alia , from a book written by an expert on Roma population which contained statements on certain Roma communities the applicant considered offensive. 148 This, however, implied that ECtHR would “need to balance the applicant’s right to ‘respect for his private life’ against the public interest in protecting freedom of expression”, bearing in mind that “no hierarchical relationship exists between the rights guaranteed by the two Articles.” 149 Significantly, there was a specific circumstance the ECtHR had to pay attention to – as the book was written by a professor at a Turkish university and was reviewed by a board composed of several other professors, the book was produced in the exercise of freedom of expression in the context of academic freedom. 150 As the ECtHR stressed in that regard, any restrictions on “the freedom of academics to carry out research and to publish their findings” should be subject to a careful scrutiny. 151 On further scrutiny, the ECtHR noted that none of the disputed statements was proven to be “unreasonable or based on a misrepresentation of the relevant facts which had

144 Ibidem. 145 Ibidem. 146 Ibidem. 147 Aksu v Turkey, No. 4149/04 and No. 41029/04, 15 March 2012. 148 Idem, paras 1–34.

149 Idem, para 63. 150 Idem, para 69. 151 Idem, para 71.

151