CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

JAN MALÍŘ CYIL 14 (2023) been collected from information not only from members of the Roma community, local authorities and the police but resulted from … own observations made according to scientific observation principles.” 152 It was also significant that the disputed statements pertained to the selected Roma communities, not the Roma population in general. 153 These facts have led the ECtHR to rule that “in the absence of any evidence justifying the conclusion that the author’s statements were insincere, it was not unreasonable for the domestic courts to hold that (the author – inserted by JM) had put effort into his work and had not been driven by racist intentions.” 154 Under these circumstances, although recognizing that the Roma population may suffer from negative stereotyping and finds itself in the vulnerable position, 155 the ECtHR was satisfied with how Turkish courts balanced the right to respect for private life and freedom of expression and, consequently, dismissed the application. 156 It is, thus, apparent that the presence of a good faith, or the absence of insincerity, on behalf of an individual academic, who exercises her or his freedom of expression, is viewed as the key criteria which guides the ECtHR in deciding whether the interference with freedom of expression in the academic context can be justified or not. In this way, good faith seems to underpin the very notion of academic accountability, as it stems from the existing case-law of the ECtHR. Access to Academic Positions and Stability of Tenure Interestingly enough, in the existing case-law of the ECtHR on Article 10 ECHR, there are at least two decisions with important repercussions on the tenure of academics and its stability. At closer look, again, the standards stemming from the ECtHR’s case-law align the law of the ECHR with international soft law in which stability of tenure is perceived as one of the important safeguards of academic freedom against arbitrariness. 157 This is also the case of many national legal systems in which stability of tenure is often recognized or subject to debate. 158 The facts of the first of the two decisions, Petersen v Germany, are closely related to the process of the reunification of Germany. 159 Following the German reunification, Mr. Petersen, a lecturer in modern history, was dismissed from the Humboldt University in Berlin after a special board, set up in the framework of restructuring public institutions of the former Eastern Germany, did not find “convincing evidence of his ability to produce critical work as a historian”. 160 After vain attempts to have the dismissal struck down by national courts, Mr. Petersen claimed before the ECtHR that he was dismissed on account of the political opinions he had expressed in his theses and, thus, in violation of Article 10 ECHR. 152 Idem, para 70. 153 Ibidem. 154 Ibidem. 155 Aksu v Turkey (n 147) para 75. 156 Idem, paras 74–77. 157 The UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-education Teaching Personnel (n 8), paras 43 and 46. 158 In a comparative perspective, see KARRAN, T., “Academic Freedom in Europe: A Preliminary Comparative

Analysis” Higher Education Policy pp. 289–313 (2007) p. 293 et seq. 159 Jürgen Petersen v Germany, No.39793/98, 22 November 2001. 160 Ibidem.

152