THE FACTS

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised

as follows:

The applicant is an Iranian citizen, born in 1942 and at present living

in Vienna. He is represented by Dr. P., a barrister practising in

Vienna.

The applicant states that after having successfully finished his higher

education in Teheran, he enrolled in 1963 as a student at the medical

school of the University of Vienna. In July 1968 he presented himself

for an examination in anatomy, which is the first in a series of

examinations called I. Rigorosum. According to an Austrian Decree

(Verordnung) of 1935 (BGBI Nr 329/1935), all Rigorosum examinations

have to be taken within a period of two years from the time a candidate

presents himself for the first examination. The applicant,

consequently, had to pass all his further examinations by July 1970.

This he failed to do, allegedly because he was ill at the time and in

financial difficulties. He therefore requested an extension of the

time-limit. This request was rejected by a board of professors of the

medical school and the applicant was so informed by the Office of the

Dean on .. November 1970. At the same time, the applicant was informed

that according to the provisions of Article III (4) of the Decree of

1935 he was no longer allowed to attend the medical school, or to

obtain a medical degree at another university or to practise medicine

in Austria.

The applicant's appeal against the decision (Bescheid) of .. November

1970 was rejected by the Academic Senate of the University of Vienna

on .. March 1971. It is pointed out in this decision that the applicant

had studied for seven years, i.e. the normal period for medical

studies. In June 1970, the applicant had failed a partial examination

and did not even present himself for the others. The Senate admitted

that from 1968 onwards the applicant had been hindered, to a certain

extent, in his studies by illness and financial difficulties but it

found that this did not explain his failure as he had ample time from

1963 to 1968 in which to prepare for his examinations.

The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal against this decision

which was, however, rejected by the Constitutional Court

(Verfassungsgerichtshof) on .. June 1971 as being ill-founded. This

decision was served on the applicant's lawyer on .. October 1971. The

Court pointed out that the applicant did not pass the examination in

anatomy which he took in July 1968 and did not take the other

examination within the period prescribed by law, i.e. in his case until

4 July 1970. The Court further stated that Article III (4) of the

Decree of 1935 was valid and did not violate Article 18 (2) of the

Constitution (Bundesverfassungsgesetz) nor the principle of freedom of

professional training (Berufsausbildungsfreiheit) as guaranteed by

Article 18 of the Basic Law (Staatsgrundgesetz) nor the right to

education as guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the

Convention.

The Court finally stated that the application of Article III (4) of the

Decree of 1935 in the applicant's case was not arbitrary but was based

on valid reasons and did not, therefore, violate any of his basic

rights.

Complaints

The applicant is of the opinion that Article III (4) of the

above-mentioned Decree, as well as its application by the Austrian

authorities in his case, constitutes a violation of the Convention,

i.e. of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 read in conjunction with Article

14 of the Convention, because he is permanently barred from practising

as a doctor in Austria.

According to the judgment of 23 July 1958 given by the European Court

of Human Rights in the case "Relating to certain aspects of the laws

on the use of languages in education in Belgium" there must be, so he

points out, a proportionate relationship between the means employed by

the Legislator and the objective aimed at. The objective of Article III

(4) of the Decree of 1935 is to accelerate the study of medicine and

to exclude unsuccessful students. In the applicant's opinion it is,

however, not justified and completely out of all proportion to

permanently deprive an unsuccessful student of the possibility to begin

his studies again or to continue them at a later date. The applicant

states that in the meantime he got married in Austria, has founded a

home and his financial situation has improved. He believes that if he

could continue studying now he would pass all the examinations within

the minimum possible period.

Article 14 of the Convention provides that the enjoyment of the rights

and freedoms in the Convention shall be secured without discrimination

on any ground and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 provides that "No one

shall be denied the right to education ...".

THE LAW

The applicant has complained that he is a victim of a violation of

Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2

of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2). He has based his complaint on the decision

of .. March 1971 of the Academic Senate which had the result that he

was no longer allowed to attend the medical school of Vienna University

or to obtain a medical degree at another university or to practice

medicine in Austria.

The Commission observes that the applicant was admitted to an Austrian

university in 1963 and was free to pursue his medical studies until

1970 and to present himself for his first examination in July 1968;

that he failed to pass this examination and a further examination in

June 1970, and did not present himself for certain other examinations,

and that, under statutory provisions governing preparations for and

conduct of examinations for admission to the profession of medicine,

he was no longer entitled to attend medical school, or seek to obtain

a medical degree in Austria.

The Commission does not consider that the conditions imposed by the

statutory provisions denied him the right to education, or that, in all

the circumstances, he was in any other way denied this right. The

Commission further finds no evidence to suggest that the decision of

the Academic Senate of .. March 1971 was contrary to Article 14

(Art. 14) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol

No. 1 (P1-2).

An examination by the Commission of this complaint as it has been

submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not therefore

disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set

out in the Convention and in particular in Article 14 (Art. 14) of the

Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2).

It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the

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

For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION

INADMISSIBLE.