CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 juin 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 120 June 2009 Sorguç v. Turkey - 17089/03 Judgment 23.6.2009 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Award of damages against university lecturer for having criticised procedures for recruiting and promoting assistant lecturers: violation   Facts : The applicant is a university professor. At an academic conference in 1997, he distributed a paper in which he criticised the system of appointment and promotion of academics in the university. Relying on his personal experience, he maintained that the presence on promotion panels of persons who were not experts in the relevant field led to the selection of people who did not have the academic qualifications required for the posts of assistant professors. He gave an example of a candidate without, however, mentioning his name. Later that year, an assistant professor brought civil proceedings for compensation against the applicant claiming that certain comments used in his paper represented an attack on his reputation. His case was dismissed by the first-instance court. Upon fresh examination, his claim was allowed and the applicant was ordered to pay damages (in a sum equivalent to approximately EUR   1,600). Law : The applicant had made his statements on the basis of personal experience, and the information he had disclosed was already known in academic circles. His speech therefore presented value judgments which were, at least in part, susceptible of proof. In the course of the proceedings, the applicant had endeavoured to demonstrate that his statements were well-founded or, at least, that he had voiced them in good faith since the plaintiff had later been dismissed from his post as a result of his inadequate scientific competence and personal values. However, without addressing his arguments, the domestic courts had concluded that the impugned statements had constituted an attack on the plaintiff’s reputation. Further, they had not explained why the reputation of the plaintiff, whose name had not even been mentioned in the paper, had outweighed the applicant’s freedom of expression. In particular, it did not appear from the domestic courts’ decisions that the applicant’s statement had affected the plaintiff’s career or private life. Thus, greater importance had been attached to the protection of an unnamed individual, including through the payment of substantial compensation, than to the freedom of expression that should normally have been enjoyed by an academic in a public debate. The Court underlined the importance of academic freedom, and in particular the freedom of academics to express freely their opinion about the institution or system in which they worked and their freedom to disseminate knowledge and truth without restriction. The national authorities had therefore failed to strike a fair balance between the relevant interests. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 3,500 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes