Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 24515/94

by Bahri SULAK

against Turkey

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 17 January 1996, the following members being present:

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

E. KONSTANTINOV

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 12 April 1994 by

Bahri SULAK against Turkey and registered on 1 July 1994 under file No.

24515/94;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

A. Particular circumstances of the case

The applicant is a Turkish citizen, born in 1963 and resident in

Eskisehir.

The facts of the present case as submitted by the applicant may

be summarised as follows.

On 4 September 1991 the applicant sat a foreign languages

examination in the Engineering and Architecture Faculty of the

University of X. where he had been studying.

In a decision dated 27 September 1991, the Administrative Board

of the Faculty found that the applicant had copied from another student

during the examination of 4 September 1991, which constituted a

disciplinary offence in accordance with the Disciplinary Regulations

for students attending Higher Education Institutions (Yüksek Ögretim

Kurumlari Ögrenci Disiplin Yönetmeligi -"the Disciplinary

Regulations"). It observed that the applicant had committed the same

disciplinary offence for the third time. The Board decided to expel the

applicant from the University in accordance with the provisions of the

Disciplinary Regulations.

Subsequently the applicant instituted proceedings for the

annulment of the decision dated 27 September 1991.

In a decision dated 16 September 1992, the Eskisehir

Administrative Court dismissed the action. The Court observed that the

Faculty Board had carried out an inquiry and examined the similarity

between the examination papers. It noted that the applicant had been

previously subjected to disciplinary penalties under the provisions of

the Disciplinary Regulations for having committed the same disciplinary

offence. It found that the applicant's expulsion pursuant to the

Disciplinary Regulations was not contrary to the law.

The applicant appealed. On 26 May 1993 the Council of State,

upholding the cogency of the Administrative Court's reasoning,

dismissed the appeal.

The applicant requested the rectification of this judgment. On

20 January 1994, the Council of State dismissed this request.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that his expulsion from the university

pursuant to a disciplinary measure deprived him of the right to

education. He also alleges that under the national regulations,

expelled students are prevented from enroling in another higher

education institution to pursue their studies.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that the disciplinary sanction imposed

on him deprived him of the right to education. The Commission examined

the applicant's complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2),

which, in so far as relevant, provides:

"No person shall be denied the right to education..."

The Commission recalls that the right to education contemplated

in Article 2 of Protocol No. 1(P1-2), mainly concerns elementary

education and not necessarily specialist advanced studies (No.

14524/89, Dec. 6.1.93, D.R. 74 pp. 14, 27).

In the present case the education in question is higher

education. However, even assuming that Article 2 of Protocol No. 1

(P1-2) is applicable to the present case, the application is in any

event manifestly ill-founded for the following reasons.

The Commission recalls that the right to education guaranteed by

the first sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) by its very

nature calls for regulation by the State provided that such regulation

does not injure the substance of the right nor conflict with other

rights enshrined in the Convention or its Protocols (cf. Campbell and

Cosans judgment of 25 February 1982, para. 41, Series A, no. 98, p.

19). The Commission further recalls that the right does not in

principle exclude recourse to disciplinary measures, including those

of suspension and expulsion from an educational establishment (cf. No.

14524/89, loc. cit., p. 14, 27).

In the present case, the Commission notes that the applicant had

an opportunity to follow his chosen course of study in the University

of X. It further notes that the applicant had been disciplined on two

occasions for cheating and can have been in no doubt as to the

requirement of the rules and regulations of the institution or as to

the likely consequences of a further breach of those rules.

Consequently, after having been been found to have cheated a third

time, he was expelled from the University as a disciplinary measure.

In addition, the Commission observes that the applicant had an

opportunity to challenge the diciplinary measure in question before the

national courts which found that his expulsion was lawful.

It is true that the applicant submits that under the national

regulations, students expelled from higher education institutions are

prevented from enrolling in another higher education institution to

pursue their studies. However, even assuming that this submission is

correct, in the circumstances of the present case, the Commission

cannot find that the expulsion of the applicant injured the substance

of the right guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) or

amounted to a denial of the applicant's right to education guaranteed

by that Article.

It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within

the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)

Menu

SULAK v. TURKEY

SULAK v. TURKEY