CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

JAN MALÍŘ CYIL 14 (2023) the ECtHR, claiming a violation of his freedom of expression and pointing especially to the lack of reasoning and the disrespect for the contradictory principle in the process of deciding on the dismissal. 165 When it came to the ECtHR, it was important it first upheld Professor Vallauri’s opinion that there was an interference with his freedom of expression. In that respect, the Italian Government actually argued he was not a holder of professorship because his contract was subject to a yearly renewal. 166 However, as the contract was successively renewed for more than 20 years and Professor Vallauri enjoyed a wide recognition from his colleagues as a member of the faculty, that meant, in the ECtHR’s view, that he may have claimed interference with his freedom of expression as an academic. 167 The finding there was an interference with Professor Vallauri’s freedom of expression, paved way towards the scrutiny of its justification. The ECtHR agreed the interference was in accordance with law as it resulted from the Concordat. 168 The ECtHR also acknowledged the interference may have pursued a legitimate aim of protecting rights of others, namely assuring that the teachings within the Catholic University are inspired by the Catholic doctrine, because “in certain organisation, religion may constitute professional requirement with regard to ethics of organisation”. 169 The ECtHR, however, failed to recognize the interference to be necessary in a democratic society. In that respect, as the ECtHR noted, it was obligatory “to balance the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, including the right to impart knowledge without restriction, and the University’s interest in providing education in accordance with its own religious beliefs”, 170 taking into account academic freedom which should guarantee freedom of expression and of action, freedom to disseminate information and freedom to conduct research and distribute knowledge and truth without restriction. 171 In the circumstances of the case, balancing was identified by the ECtHR with the existence of adequate procedural safeguards, including the opportunity to know and challenge the reasons for the interference with Professor Vallauri’s freedom of expression, both on administrative and judicial level. 172 As no precise reasons for the dismissal of Profesor Valaluri’s candidacy were given, which would contain the assessment of his opinions incompatible with the Catholic doctrine, 173 and as national courts failed to review the dismissal on account of the lack of reasoning, which “would have in no way involved a judgement by the judicial authorities, as to the compatibility of the applicant’s positions with Catholic doctrine”, 174 the ECtHR concluded that Professor Vallauri had no possibility “to know the precise reasons for the loss of his authorisation” which “definitively prevented him from defending himself in an adversarial debate”, the circumstance which was not adequately addressed by the domestic courts. 175 As

165 Idem, paras 5–18. 166 Idem, para 32. 167 Idem, para 39. 168 Idem, para 40. 169 Idem, para 41. 170 Idem, para 44. 171 Idem, para 43. 172 Idem, para 46. 173 Idem, paras 47–49.

174 Idem, para 52. 175 Idem, para 54.

154