PROJE HAKKINDA.

Kamuran AKIN v. Turkey and 42 other applications emerge from a statement issued on 11 January 2016 by a group of academics from diverse Turkish universities, entitled “We will not be a party to this crime,” which critically questioned the Turkish Government’s role in the conflict in South-east Turkey and associated serious violations. The day after the “Academics for Peace Petition” was published, President Erdoğan described signatories as “so-called intellectuals” and “pseudo academics” and accused them of treason, which was followed by their public vilification as “terrorists,” and they were subject to disciplinary, administrative and criminal proceedings across the country. Following the July 2016 coup attempt, hundreds of academics, including the applicants, were then dismissed from their university positions through a series of emergency decrees.

The brief on academic freedom was presented by Profs. Helen Duffy and Philip Leach (co-supervisors in the TLSP) on behalf of a group of leading academics, and addresses the nature of academic freedom, its significance for human rights and democracy, and its legal protection in international human rights law. The brief focuses first on the nature of ‘academic freedom,’ embracing individual and institutional autonomy from the state, and a public and social role (informing healthy democratic discourse including criticism of government), both of which preclude requiring academic ‘loyalty’ to the state as the Turkish state purports to do. The brief explains the significance of academic freedom for the array of human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and broader international human rights law - for the academics directly affected, for the full range of rights of many others, and for the fundamental values underpinning the ECHR and democratic systems. The intervention calls for the Court’s considered attention to the issue of academic freedom which remain relatively underexplored in ECHR jurisprudence, yet has significant implications for the interpretation and application of the Convention: informing states’ ‘positive obligations’ to create an ‘enabling environment’ for academic freedom, and requiring a strict approach to permissible restrictions on rights. The brief questions whether measures directed at curtailing the academic function can be justified as restrictions a) provided for in clear foreseeable law, b) as necessary and proportionate, and c) whether they are subject to meaningful remedies and review within Turkey. It questions whether the measures can be justified by reference to the ‘emergency’ following the attempted coup in July 2016. It urges the Court to consider whether they pursued an ‘ulterior purpose’ under Article 18, representing the latest in a line of societal actors to be targeted for their expression of opposition to the Turkish government.

The brief calls on the Court to robustly apply the ECHR and international standards to safeguard academic autonomy and freedom of expression on matters of public concern. The issue is timely and pressing in the context of alarming growth in attacks on academic freedom in Turkey and around the globe, and its insidious implications for closing democratic space.