CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

CYIL 14 (2023) THE EUROPEAN COURT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM “the weight accorded to the University’s interest in teaching Catholic doctrine cannot go so far as to affect the very substance of the procedural safeguards which the applicant shall enjoy under Article 10”, the ECtHR concluded Article 10 ECHR was breached. 176 In terms of stability of academic tenure, the ruling in Vallauri v Italy is relevant in several aspects. Firstly, the ruling confirms that academic tenure, within the ambit of Article 10 ECHR, can be linked to specific requirements, such as the consent of religious bodies in case of universities operating under the religious principles and recognized in the Contracting States. Secondly, any decisions which have or may have an impact on the tenure must be based on specific reasons and cannot be justified by general references to positions the academic holds or held in the past. Thirdly and most essentially, there must be adequate procedural safeguards on both administrative and judicial level which permit to have any decisions on the tenure reviewed. These procedural safeguards are especially relevant in order to prevent The expansion of research and the growing focus on evaluating research in the recent years have inevitably intensified the problem of plagiarism in the academic context. Unsurprisingly, the problem of plagiarism, phenomenon capable of seriously undermining academic freedom, has been also mirrored in the case-law of the ECtHR. Again, Article 10 ECHR has served as the key legal grounds on which this problem has been addressed by the ECtHR. Up to now, the principal statements on the scope of Article 10 ECHR with respect to plagiarism can be drawn from Yazici v Turkey. 177 This case arose over the claims that the popular Turkish textbook entitled “Mother’s Book” was partially plagiarised from Dr Benjamin Spock’s book “Baby and Childcare”. This led the author of the Turkish handbook, a prominent academic, professor of paediatrics and member of the Turkish Academy of Sciences, to sue Mr. Yazici, one of the main proponents of plagiarism thesis which was later confirmed by the Ethics Committee of the Turkish Academy of Sciences. Following a seven year saga, national courts awarded the Professor the compensation after the Turkish Court of Cassation opined that, inter alia , the handbook contained anonymous information and not the original ideas developed by any authors which meant standard references to sources were not necessary in the handbook. 178 The award of compensation, in turn, resulted in Mr. Yazici bringing an application before ECtHR on account, inter alia , the violation of his freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR. 179 As for the claim of the violation of Article 10 ECHR, classically, the key issue was whether the final judgment awarding the compensation, which was duly grounded in the provisions of the Turkish Civil Code 180 and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others, 181 was necessary in a democratic society. In this regard, it was materially relevant that the statements concerning the professor’s plagiarism were qualified as statements 176 Idem, para 55. 177 Hasan Yazici v Turkey, No. 40877/07, 15 April 2014. 178 Idem, paras 5–38. any arbitrariness with respect to tenure. Plagiarism in the Academic Context

179 Idem, para 40. 180 Idem, para 46. 181 Ibidem.

155