SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE CABRAL BARRETO

(Translation)

The Chamber decided to examine the applicants ’ complaints under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.

I personally had a clear preference for examining the case under Article 10.

1. T he applicants received disciplinary sanctions for drawing up a pe tition requesting the introduction of Kurdish langu ag e classes at their university .

The sanctions in question manifestly interfered with the a pplicants ’ right to freedom of expression, and although the interference was prescribed by law, it was not at all necessary in a democratic society .

Accordingly, there was a clear violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

2. The Chamber pursued a new approach, which was dangerous and in my view not at all sound .

The applicants were suspend ed from university for two terms, except Mr Pulat , who was suspended for one term .

After serving their disciplinary sanctions, all the applicants resumed their studies .

We are a long way from situations where, as a result of disciplinary sanctions, people have been permanently refused access to education .

The case before us was more concerned with a restriction of the right to education ( see paragraph 40 of the judgment ); in my opinion, the very essence of the right in issue was not impaired .

It is true that, in reaching the finding of a violation, the judgment introduced the idea of proportionalit y, concluding that the sanctions were not reasonable or proportion ate .

Although I could agree with this point in principle, I am not sure that Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 permits such reasoning.

Firstly, the wording of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 does not contain any reference to restrictions; and , above all, the introduc tion of the notion of proportionality will, in my view, paradoxically weaken the right in question.

Assessing the proportionality of the sanction will make it possible, on the one hand, to accept a sanction which permanently denies a person access to education and , on the other, to find a violation in the case of a mere one-day suspension which was in itself disproportionate because, for example, the person concerned did not do anything.

Moreover, this approach requires the Court to set criter ia in order to be able to speak of a violation based on the lack of proportionality between the individual ’ s conduct and the sanction imposed ; while that was not impossible, for the sake of caution I would have preferred the Grand Chamber to intervene .

Appendix to the judgment

List of applicants

[1] Listed in the appendix to this document.

[2] The Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal armed organ isa tion.