The applicant, Mr Luigi Lombardi Vallauri (hereafter Mr LV), is at present a professor of legal philosophy at the University of Florence. In 1976, he began teaching legal philosophy at the Faculty of Law of the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart) in Milan through contracts renewed on an annual basis.

Mr LV entered a competition, for the post he was at the time holding, in the 1998/99 academic year. However, the Congregation informed the University by letter that some of the applicant’s views were “in clear opposition to Catholic doctrine” and that “in the interests of truth and of the well being of students and the University” the applicant should no longer teach there.

On 4 November 1998 the Faculty of Law Board decided not to examine the applicant’s application, since the approval of the Congregation for Catholic Education was a condition for admission to the competition. One of the applicant’s colleagues proposed that reasons be given for the measure taken but the proposal was rejected by a majority vote.

Mr LV applied to the Lombardy Regional Administrative Court to have the decisions of the Faculty Board and the ecclesiastical authority set aside, arguing that both were unconstitutional because they breached his right to equality, freedom of instruction and freedom of religion. On 26 October 2001 the Court rejected the application on the grounds, inter alia, that adequate reasons had been given for the Faculty Board’s refusal to consider the applicant’s candidacy, and that the revised Concordat between the Holy See and the Italian Republic did not lay down any requirement to state the religious grounds for refusing approval. The court further held that neither the Faculty Board nor the court itself had jurisdiction to examine the legitimacy of the Holy See’s decision, which had emanated from a foreign State. The court also pointed out that teaching staff were free to choose whether or not to adhere to the principles of the Catholic faith.

The applicant appealed to the Consiglio di Stato reiterating the lack of reasons given for the Faculty Board’s decision and contesting the lack of jurisdiction of the administrative court. Consiglio di Stato dismissed the appeal following a 1972 decision and observing that “no authority in the Republic may rule on the findings of the ecclesiastical authority”.

Violation of article 10

Mr LV pleaded that the University’s decision violated his article 10 right to freedom of expression. The Court decided that the question was admissible, contrary to what the Italian government had said. Second it added that, given that his temporary employment contracts had been constantly renewed for over 20 years and given his academic qualities, Mr LV’s professional situation was to be considered stable. Thus the failure to consider his application constituted an interference with his right to freedom of expression.

The Court noted that the interference was in accordance with Italian law and could have the legitimate aim of protecting the “rights of others” in receiving a Catholic education.

The Court went on to consider whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society. It considered that, in omitting to explain how the applicant’s views purportedly in opposition with the Catholic doctrine could affect the University’s interests, the Faculty Board had not given adequate reasons for its decision.

Moreover, although it was not for the domestic authorities to examine the substance of the Congregation’s doctrinal stance, the administrative courts, in the interests of the principle of adversarial debate, should have addressed the lack of reasons for the Faculty Board’s decision given that such lack prevented Mr LV from exercising his right to reply.

In conclusion, the Court considered that the University’s interest in dispensing teaching based on Catholic doctrine could not extend to impairing the very substance of the procedural guarantees afforded to the applicant by Article 10 of the Convention. Accordingly, the interference had not been “necessary in a democratic society”. The Court therefore held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention in its procedural aspect.

The Court held that the applicant had not had effective access to a court for the same reasons, and found a violation of Article 6 § 1 by six votes to one.

The Court considered that there was no need to examine separately the applicant’s complaints under Articles 9, 13 and 14.

Judge Cabral Barreto dissented. According to him a renewable annual contract could not constitute the basis of a stable employment situation, despite having been renewed for twenty years, and consequently Mr LV was in the same position as all the other candidates in respect of the post. Moreover, in his opinion a change in the professor’s views could legitimately lead to the exclusion of his application. He also argued that the only way to justify the Congregation’s decision without overlapping on the zone of discretion of the Catholic Church was to say that Mr LV’s writings contradicted a dogma of the Catholic faith, which is the justification which was given by the Faculty Board. Accordingly, the interference with Mr LV’s procedural rights under articles 10 and 6(1) of the convention had, for him, not been breached.