Information Note on the Court’s case-law 227

March 2019

Kılıç v. Turkey (dec.) - 29601/05

Decision 5.3.2019 [Section II]

Article 2 of Protocol No. 1

Right to education

University admission system attaching greater weight to a student’s previous field of study: inadmissible

Facts – In 1999 a new system for the admission to university was introduced. The new system consisted of a single exam and took into account the mark obtained together with the student’s average school mark. If a student selected a university department that corresponded to his field of studies at high school, his average school mark was multiplied by 0.5 and added to the result of the univers ity exam. If a student preferred to study in a different field, his average school mark was multiplied by 0.2. The applicant complained that this scoring system had put him, a graduate of a vocational high school, at a disadvantage.

Law – Article 2 of Prot ocol No. 1: When regulating access to universities or colleges of higher education, member States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation concerning the qualities required of candidates in order to select those who were liable to succeed in their higher-leve l studies. The Supreme Administrative Court had ruled that the new selection system for access to university took account of the requirements arising from the changes in the country’s economic and social conditions in connection with university students’ q ualifications and that the system met the requirement of raising the standard of higher education. In a reasoned judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court had decided that the amendment had been necessary and the applicant’s rights had not been prejudiced because of the new system. The selection system attaching greater weight to a student’s field of study pursued the legitimate aim of improving the standard of university studies.

As to whether the means employed were proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved, the Court observed that the weighting introduced was applied to candidates in accordance with the study pathway which they had chosen on entering upper high school. The holders of vocational high school diplomas took the national entrance examina tion on an equal footing with candidates from general upper high schools, and their results were assessed in the same manner. The selection criteria could not thus be considered as disproportionate. Furthermore, in the applicant’s case, even if his average school mark had been multiplied by 0.5, his score in the exam would not have been sufficient for admission. In any event, the applicant had succeeded twice in the university exams and had been admitted to two universities. Consequently, in the circumstanc es of the case, the applicant had not been deprived of his right of access to higher education (compare and contrast Altınay v. Turkey , 37222/04, 9 July 2013, Information Note 165 ).

Conclusion : inadm issible (manifestly ill-founded).

(See also Leyla Åžahin v. Turkey [GC], 44774/98, 10 November 2005, Information Note 80 )

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes