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

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.