CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

CYIL 14 (2023) THE EUROPEAN COURT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM more in-depth. Yet, considerations linked to institutional autonomy are not completely missing from the case-law of the ECtHR. This is most evident from Kharlamov v Russia. 188 When scrutinizing the complaint over the violation of freedom of expression, stemming from the way how national courts treated statements critical of internal academic procedures, the ECtHR unambiguously took the view that academic freedom implies institutional autonomy of academic institutions which primarily manifests itself through the election of the bodies governing universities or other higher education institutions. 189 In Sahin v Turkey, 190 at the margin of a sensitive case concerning the wearing of religious or quasi-religious symbols at universities, the ECtHR indicated that universities or other institutions of higher education are entitled to adopt the internal rules as long as these rules are conformity with law and allow for judicial review. Although the ECtHR made this statement in the context of analysing the right to manifest religion under Article 9 ECHR, its impact goes beyond the ambit of this Article. 191 In the same case, the emphasize on the institutional autonomy was also apparent from the ECtHR’s pronouncement on the right to education line of the case. In that context, the ECtHR observed, “[t]he right to education does not in principle exclude recourse to disciplinary measures, including suspension or expulsion from an educational institution in order to ensure compliance with its internal rules”, particularly where the student has the opportunity to get acquainted with the internal rules of the university and their justification. 192 More recently, the ECtHR confirmed the existence of a broad institutional autonomy of academic institutions in Acik v Turkey. 193 In this case, it scrutinized the situation in which, a group of students protested against the allegedly undemocratic measures taken inside the Istanbul University and, by means of shouting slogans and raising banners, attempted to interrupt the speech given by the Chancellor of the University at the opening ceremony. This led to the forcible removal, arrest and injury of these students. 194 The ECtHR criticized the intervention as disproportionate, 195 ruling less draconian measures, such as the denial of the re-entry into the conference hall, would have sufficed to protect the freedom of the Chancellor to expression all the more so that the protest was not violent. 196 However, the ECtHR did not deny universities may regulate their internal affairs in order to, inter alia , divert violence and to protect public order in the course of academic life and, also, to protect rights of others. 197 Thus, although the case-law of the ECtHR does not contain an exhaustive list of elements related to institutional autonomy of academic institutions, it is undeniable the ECtHR

188 Kharlamov v Russia (n 106). 189 Idem, para 28. 190 Leyla Şahin v Turkey (n 28).

191 Idem, para 95. 192 Idem, para 156. 193 Açik and Others v Turkey, No. 31451/03, 13 January 2009. 194 Idem, paras 6–23.

195 Idem, para 33 (with respect to the argument over inhuman and degrading treatment, prohibited by Article 3) and para 46 (with respect to the argument over violation of freedom of expression, as enshrined in Article 10).

196 Idem, para 46. 197 Idem, para 45.

157