Two Third Party Interventions in the "Academics for Peace" Cases at the European Court of Human Rights

A brief on academic freedom has been filed at the European Court of Human Rights today in the “Academics for Peace” case (Kamuran AKIN v. Turkey and 42 other applications, Application nos. 72796/16, 72798/16, 72799/16 et al). The third party intervention was presented by Profs. Helen Duffy and Philip Leach (co-supervisors in the Turkey Litigation Support Project (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.

Another third party intervention was submitted in the same case on 10 December 2021 by the TLSP in which the Court was provided with written comments on one of the core issues arising in the applications:  the availability and effectiveness of domestic remedies in the context of the application of emergency measures in Turkey.

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 filed today by the Coalition of Academic Interveners 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.

The brief filed on 10 December 2021 addresses the issue of the availability and effectiveness of domestic remedies in the context of the application of the state of emergency measures concerning dismissals of public sector workers in Turkey. In doing so, the brief first focuses on the right to an effective remedy and the extent to which the Inquiry Commission on the State of Emergency Measures (Commission) ensures necessary guarantees. Then, it considers whether it is possible to remedy any shortcomings of the Commission in subsequent appeal proceedings before designated administrative courts or the Turkish Constitutional Court.

The intervention points out the serious questions about the independence and impartiality of the Commission and the domestic courts. It shows that domestic authorities have not examined the complaints of dismissed public sector workers in a timely manner. Finally, it also explains how the procedure before the Commission and the administrative courts raise several serious shortcomings and that the remit of those domestic authorities’ decisions is overly restricted.  

The third party intervention filed on 10 December 2021 is available here (in English) and here (in Turkish) . The submission made on 20 December 2021 including the list of interveners is available here (in English) and here (in Turkish).

For more information: on the intervention by the Coalition of Academic Interveners, Helen Duffy (helen@rightsinpractice.org) or on the intervention by the TLSP and the broader context in Turkey, Ayse Bingol Demir (info@turkeylitigationsupport.com).

 (Translation of the 3rd party interventions into Turkish from English: Eren Buğlalılar)