Supreme Court rules on right to freedom of expression and academic freedom of university lecturer

Last Friday, July 11, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled (ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1140) in a case in which a university lecturer's employment contract was terminated due to a disrupted working relationship. In short, the university lecturer argued that the termination of her employment contract was the result of an essay she had published. She believed that this was a restriction of her right to freedom of expression and academic freedom.

What happened?

The lecturer joined the University of Groningen (RUG) in 2009 and transferred to the Faculty of Economics and Business in 2013. There, she started as an assistant professor (UD 2), with the prospect of advancing to higher positions within a clear career policy. Within this structure, after a few years and based on her performance and a positive recommendation from the Internal Promotions Committee (CIP), she was able to advance to associate professor (UHD).

She also took those steps toward growth: in 2015, after being appointed as an assistant professor, she was promoted to associate professor earlier than planned. However, the CIP did give her an important point of attention: to publish more in scientific journals. In the years that followed, the lecturer worked on publications and openly expressed her ambition to progress to UHD 1. Her manager was positive about this, but felt it was still too early. The manager believed that the aforementioned point for attention had not yet been sufficiently addressed.

Relations deteriorated dramatically in 2018 when the lecturer accused her manager of sex discrimination and "scientific harassment" in a letter. An investigation dismissed the allegations, but trust had been severely damaged. Mediation attempts and other attempts by the manager to engage in dialogue were unsuccessful.

In June 2019, the lecturer published a critical essay in an international academic journal. In the piece, she expressed fundamental criticism of diversity regulations in academia. Among other things, the essay referred to practices within her own faculty. This led to unrest within the department; several professors felt personally affected by the wording in the essay. In the years that followed, the faculty and the University of Groningen attempted to resolve the situation, with the lecturer being promoted retroactively to UHD 1 as of January 1, 2019. Conditions were attached to this, including mediation and coaching focused on soft skills. The lecturer did not want to agree to this and, after undergoing mediation and attempts at redeployment, the University of Groningen ultimately submitted a request for termination.

The subdistrict court terminated the employment contract on the basis of Article 7:669(3)(g) of the Dutch Civil Code (disrupted working relationship). The lecturer then lodged an appeal. She argued, among other things, that the termination of her employment contract was a direct consequence of the essay she had published and that this sanction constituted an unacceptable interference with her right to freedom of expression and her academic freedom. The court of appeal rejected this argument. It ruled that although the essay was part of the events that ultimately led to the termination, it could not be regarded as the cause or essential link that led to the request for termination. The breach of trust had already occurred in 2018, well before the essay was published. 

The teacher also disagreed with the court's ruling and lodged an appeal.

Judgement of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court rejected the appeal. The publication of the essay does indeed fall under the right to freedom of expression protected by Article 10 of the ECHR, including academic freedom, and a request for termination of the employment contract can be considered a sanction for this, but this only applies if the requested termination is exclusively or mainly the result of the expression. 

According to the Supreme Court, the court rightly concluded that the termination of the employment contract was not exclusively or primarily the result of the publication of the essay. When assessing whether there is a causal link between an expression covered by freedom of expression and a sanction under employment law, such as dismissal, attention must be paid to the entirety of relevant events in their mutual context. The facts of the case show that the breach of trust had already occurred before the essay was published and continued afterwards, including repeated conflicts over promotion requirements and communication with colleagues. According to the Supreme Court, the court's ruling must be understood to mean that even without the published essay, the employment contract would have been terminated due to a disrupted working relationship. 

The Supreme Court therefore ruled that there was no violation of the right to freedom of expression. The Supreme Court also found that the termination of the employment contract did not constitute a violation of the right to academic freedom. 

Want to learn more about this topic? Please contact one of our specialists.