Connect with us

Europe

Academic freedom on trial as professor Ulrike Guérot’s case reaches federal court

Published

on

The legal battle of German academic Ulrike Guérot has been escalated to the Federal Labour Court. The Berlin-based Westend Publishing House has issued a press release regarding the reinstatement lawsuit filed by their author, Prof. Dr. Ulrike Guérot, against the University of Bonn. The publisher affirmed its support for Guérot, emphasizing that freedom of expression is the foundation of publishing. The statement included a quote from Goethe dated 1825: “But I have seen that for many, science has meaning only as long as they make a living from it, and they even deify the error to which they owe their existence.”

‘Rulings are legally problematic’

According to many legal experts, the decisions rendered by the Bonn Labour Court (April 24, 2024) and the Cologne State Labour Court (September 30, 2024) contain legal flaws. For this reason, Prof. Dr. Guérot and her lawyers, Tobias Gall and Christian auf der Heiden, have decided to exhaust all legal avenues to have the State Labour Court’s decision reviewed. An application has been filed with the Federal Labour Court to appeal the ruling. It was stated that Prof. Dr. Guérot’s primary objective in this process is to refute the accusation of “intentional deception” made by the University of Bonn. Westend Publishing House announced its support for Guérot and her lawyers in this endeavor.

Case on the Council of Europe’s agenda

The process, referred to as the “Guérot Case,” has received extensive coverage in national and international media. An article by Thomas Fazi titled Enemy of the State was one such publication. Following these developments, the case was included as a case study in a report prepared by the Council of Europe. The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy in Strasbourg is preparing a study titled Strengthening freedom of expression: a necessity for the consolidation and development of democratic societies. The final version of the preliminary report, drafted in May of this year, is expected to be published next month. Meanwhile, the publisher argued that only legal criteria should be considered, regardless of political stance, drawing comparisons to other well-known cases such as that of Prof. Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf.

‘Academic freedom is a fundamental right’

In 2024, Westend Publishing House published the empirical study He Who Disturbs Must Go by Heike Egner and Anke Uhlenwinkel. The study examined the situation of academics who have been dismissed from their universities in recent years due to ideological differences. The publisher stated its opposition to any restrictions on freedom of expression and academic freedom in Germany, a position supported by its current publications. According to the 2023 Freedom Index prepared by ZEIT/Allensbach, only 40% of Germans believe they can express their opinions freely. Markus J. Karsten, owner of Westend Publishing House, said that by supporting Guérot’s appeal, they want to take a stand for academic freedom. “If a few citation errors, which constitute less than two percent of the book, are considered plagiarism, then a large portion of popular science literature must be placed under the same suspicion,” Karsten stated.

‘The court overstepped its authority’

Prof. Dr. Ulrike Guérot’s lawyers, Christian auf der Heiden and Tobias Gall, also released a separate press statement on the matter. The statement announced that political scientist Guérot has appealed to the Federal Labour Court against the decision of the Cologne State Labour Court. The lawyers emphasized that the court’s decision to reject the appeal was legally flawed and constituted a serious interference with academic freedom. The Cologne State Labour Court had upheld the University of Bonn’s decision to terminate the contract, deeming the plagiarism accusation during the application process sufficient for a conduct-based dismissal. Guérot’s lawyers argued that the court completely disregarded fundamental issues such as academic practice and the freedom of science guaranteed under Article 5, Paragraph 3 of the German Constitution. The statement noted that the court acted like a scientific committee, despite lacking the expertise, and made decisions on the “principles of good scientific practice” without seeking external expert opinion.

The ruling sets a dangerous precedent, says Guérot’s lawyer Gall

The lawyers stressed that the plagiarism allegations on which the court’s decision was based constitute less than 2% of the relevant works. They noted that the conclusion that such a low percentage implies an intent to deceive in a professorship application is legally indefensible and detached from reality. Furthermore, it was stated that the ruling ignores the fact that the publications in question were not classic academic qualification works but political essays aimed at a broad audience.

Prof. Dr. Guérot’s lawyer, Tobias Gall, offered the following assessment: “The decision of the Cologne State Labour Court is extremely problematic for academic freedom in its consequences. For a court to validate the dismissal of a professor by intervening in matters of scientific evaluation without any expertise in political science, and by completely overlooking the principle of proportionality, sets a dangerous precedent. We will vigorously defend our client’s rights before the Federal Labour Court to re-establish the necessary distinction between legal assessment and academic freedom. This is not only in the interest of Prof. Dr. Guérot but of everyone who still values freedom of expression and science.”

It was also shared that the appeal was filed in a timely manner with the Federal Labour Court in Erfurt and that the University of Bonn’s termination decision is not yet final.

Europe

EU divisions deepen over who should negotiate with Vladimir Putin

Published

on

As the US continues to mediate talks between Ukraine and Russia, the debate within the EU over who will sit at the table is intensifying.

Negotiations between Russia and Ukraine scheduled for next week in Abu Dhabi, mediated by the US, will take place without European participation.

There are currently no expectations of a breakthrough, but this has not prevented infighting within the EU over representation.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni added fresh friction to the debate yesterday, 5 November, stating that the EU gives “the impression of a Europe moving in different directions.”

In a letter to European Council President António Costa, she argued that the 27 EU leaders must unite behind a single representative before the end of the year.

According to Rapporteur, an “alphabet soup” of diplomatic formats, such as the E2, E3, E5, or the CoW (Coalition of the Willing), is competing to take centre stage in discussions concerning the future of Ukraine.

Facing elections next year, Meloni has long pushed back against the assertive stance adopted by the E3 format, which brings together the UK, France, and Germany, in their efforts to represent European interests in ending the war and shaping the continent’s future security architecture.

Last month, the Italian leader said:

“If France, Germany, and Great Britain believe that within that renowned E3 format they can achieve more alone than we can all achieve together, then they should at least do so in the name of everyone, with an official mandate from all parties.”

An EU diplomat remarked: “When we speak of the E3, we are talking about geopolitical influence, military strength, and financial power. This does not mean Italy is excluded, but Rome clearly believes it must have a seat at the table.”

Meloni has the backing of Poland, another major military power and the only other large EU country sharing a border with Ukraine.

However, her counterpart Donald Tusk has been less explicit about seeking a direct role in top-level talks.

“As you know, we have many different formats,” Tusk told reporters in Warsaw on Thursday. “We have a clear position as the EU and as the Coalition of the Willing. I am fully engaged in these processes.”

Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, however, proved considerably more outspoken. “The last thing we want is Western Europe dealing with Russia while bypassing Eastern Europeans,” Sikorski said, drawing parallels to the 1930s and the 1945 Yalta Conference:

“You cannot exclude Eastern Europe and Scandinavia from these talks. We are roughly 120 million people. Finland borders Russia, Norway borders Russia, the Baltic states border Russia, and Poland borders both Russia and Ukraine.”

Berlin argues that the E3 remains the natural representative group, given that Germany, France, and the UK are the three strongest military powers capable of underwriting future security guarantees for Ukraine.

Like Italy, Poland favours the E5 configuration, which would allow Warsaw and Rome to take part.

Yet Sikorski also floated another leadership lineup to meet Putin: António Costa, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, and UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham.

Sikorski argued that under EU treaties, the Costa-Kallas pairing holds the legal authority to represent the bloc.

Speaking to journalists in Lisbon on Thursday, the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, said: “I agree with Prime Minister Meloni; we must not speak with different voices. We must remain united in stating that these matters sought by Russia require Europe’s decision as well.”

Meloni is not alone in pointing out cracks in the EU’s posture. Last week, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, a close ally of Meloni on the European Council, questioned a phone call made to Putin by the leaders of Finland and Norway, asking what they truly hoped to achieve.

Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre defended the conversation as a useful step taken in full coordination with Kyiv.

According to an EU official, the pair would be “more than happy” to discuss appointing a special envoy for Ukraine.

The official stressed, however, that the call was not “a bid” to position Stubb and Støre for the role.

Regardless, the war is unlikely to end this winter, even as Europeans explore fresh mechanisms to finance Ukraine.

“We must be realistic about peace talks and extremely cautious regarding Russia’s true intentions,” Donald Tusk said. “During the winter months, Putin may have less motivation to reach an agreement.”

Continue Reading

Europe

EU urges citizens to prepare 72-hour survival kits for crises

Published

on

European Union citizens should be prepared to meet their basic needs independently for the first 72 hours of an emergency until public services can organize relief, according to new guidelines.

Hadja Lahbib, the European Commissioner for Equality, Crisis Management and Preparedness, presented the non-binding advisory guidance at the European Civil Protection Forum.

In her remarks on the initiative, Lahbib said: “When a disaster strikes, the first hours can be vital. Every European must know what to do, how to protect their family and how to help others. Preparedness begins in our homes, our schools and our communities.”

The Brussels leadership explained that the new measures are prompted by Europe facing increasingly frequent and complex crises.

Under the recommendations, the European Commission advised citizens to stockpile essential supplies and keep pre-packed emergency grab bags ready.

These steps aim to ensure that individuals can address their primary necessities independently during the first three days of a crisis, before state aid is mobilized.

The guidelines also encompass three additional priority areas: preparing children for emergency situations, making safety measures accessible to individuals with disabilities, and ensuring the public is better informed about potential threats.

Citing the 2001 founding anniversary of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, the European Commission also proposed designating 23 October as “EU Preparedness Day” each year starting in 2027.

EU member states are preparing for an extensive hybrid attack scenario that could result in casualties, according to a Politico report citing European diplomats and officials.

The report noted that divisions have emerged within the EU over the bloc’s security role and whether its initiatives duplicate the functions of NATO.

According to the same report, ambassadors from the 27 EU member states held closed-door meetings focusing on deploying emergency response teams and allocating resources from EU funds to an affected country.

Following the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine in 2022, both the EU and NATO intensified their preparations for a potential military confrontation with Russia.

In its “White Paper on European Defence – Preparedness 2030”, presented in March 2025, the European Commission identified Russia as one of the primary threats to European security.

The document outlines plans to boost defence production and improve air and missile defence, unmanned systems, and military mobility.

Meanwhile, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have begun drafting contingency action plans for a potential Russian attack, including measures for the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

The three Baltic states decided in May 2025 to cooperate in the field of civil defence.

Lieutenant General Christian Freuding, head of the German Army, also stated that Berlin must be prepared for a Russian attack by 2029 or earlier.

On the other hand, Russian President Vladimir Putin stressed in a statement in September that Moscow is not preparing for war with Europe.

Putin stated that Moscow has no such plans and that there are no justifications or real reasons to escalate the situation with Europe.

Criticising the European stance, Putin described rhetoric from European nations regarding a Russian threat and the necessity of preparing for war as a “provocation” and a “deliberate incitement of the situation.”

The Kremlin also noted that the EU is turning into a “military-political-economic bloc” by spending vast budgets to weaponize its economies.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned that statements by EU nations regarding the risk of war with Russia are driving European rearmament, which could ultimately become a “self-fulfilling prophecy.”

In earlier remarks, Lavrov assessed that “if Europe attacks the Russian Federation, it will be a completely different war, and it will be over very quickly.”

Continue Reading

Europe

Paris meeting between Marine Le Pen and Nigel Farage unscheduled

Published

on

Plans for a meeting in Paris between Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and French far-right National Rally (RN) figurehead Marine Le Pen remain uncertain.

Farage’s planned visit to France, which he announced for October as part of an effort to establish ties with figures on the European right before the end of the year, has yet to be officially scheduled by Le Pen’s camp.

Speaking to Politico on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive inter-party relations, four National Rally officials familiar with Le Pen’s schedule said no visit to the party leader had been planned.

Multiple party figures said they saw no urgency in drawing media attention to relations with Reform UK or to the migration pact signed in September.

One official noted that the “costs and benefits” of holding a meeting with Farage needed to be weighed.

Political circumstances for both parties have shifted markedly since the prospect of a meeting with Le Pen, widely viewed as the candidate most likely to win the first round of the 2027 French presidential election, was first mooted.

Jordan Bardella, the National Rally’s second-in-command, attended Reform UK’s conference in Birmingham in early September as guest of honour.

Bardella and Farage announced an agreement proposing the return to France of all migrants reaching the UK through unauthorised Channel crossings in small boats.

The proposal triggered a backlash across different political factions in France, where critics questioned why the country should accept the return of asylum seekers.

Internal problems also emerged within Reform UK during the Birmingham conference.

Reform UK, which had maintained its polling lead over the Labour Party led by Andy Burnham, who took over as prime minister from Keir Starmer, was shaken by an undercover investigation published on the eve of the conference.

The development, which raised fresh questions over the party’s financial structure, led to the resignation of Farage’s two most senior aides.

Labour subsequently recovered in the polls, while a rise in the Conservative Party’s share of the vote began to challenge Reform UK’s second-place standing.

The initial announcement that Farage would travel to France to meet Le Pen before the end of October was also made at the Birmingham conference in early September.

Referring to a trip to Paris after Bardella delivered a speech in English, Farage said: “The only downside is I think they’re going to invite me to Paris, and I will have to speak French, but never mind, we’ll get round it.”

However, no official invitation has been confirmed.

As October drew to a close and it became clear that Farage would not pay a return visit to the National Rally’s conference in Orleans, a senior Reform UK official maintained that the meeting was on the calendar for this year.

The leadership in Paris does not confirm that schedule.

The four officials familiar with Le Pen’s plans said they were unaware of any scheduled visit for Farage before Christmas. One of Le Pen’s advisers suggested that a meeting could instead be offered with Bardella, whose standing inside the party has weakened in recent months.

Questioning the merits of the party leader appearing alongside Farage, another adviser to Le Pen said: “We need a bit more time to think through the costs and benefits.”

Thibaut Francois, an official with the National Rally’s European Parliament delegation, said that “regular contacts” with Reform UK continued and that the two parties would meet “very soon”, though he did not clarify whether that would take place this year.

A senior Reform UK official said: “Reform’s primary objective is to become battle-ready for British elections; parading on the international stage right now would add nothing to the UK message.”

Charles-Henri Gallois, an economic adviser to Bardella, argued that there was no need for further contact between the two parties, asserting that the migration agreement was “ready and waiting to be implemented” should both parties come to power.

“There is no need to discuss this further,” Gallois told Politico. “Critics of the agreement do not understand migration flows. This agreement is entirely in France’s interest.”

With French voters wary of a UK-style exit, Le Pen has long distanced herself from efforts to pull France out of the European Union.

Jean-Yves Camus, a far-right specialist at the Jean-Jaures Foundation think-tank, said: “Farage still supports Brexit, whereas Le Pen abandoned the idea [of Frexit] because it was too frightening for French voters. Donald Trump’s defeat in the midterms will also reinforce Le Pen’s distrust of Trumpism and its European counterparts.”

The level of internal support within the National Rally for the migration deal signed by Bardella and Farage was a subject of debate even as it was being concluded.

Since the party conference in September, Bardella’s position has continued to weaken following antisemitism allegations, which he has firmly denied.

Before reaching the agreement with Bardella, Farage had proposed launching “the largest military operation in the Channel since the Second World War” to push small boats back to the French coast.

A figure close to Le Pen told Politico at the time: “Why would we take [them] back to France if they are not French?”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey