PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 37222/04) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Bekir Güven Altınay (“the applicant”), on 16 August 2004.

The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

The applicant alleged in particular that he had suffered discrimination owing to changes to the university entrance system and the lack of transitional clauses. He contended that because he held a vocational high school diploma, the new selection system had put him at a disadvantage in relation to candidates from ordinary high schools and also in relation to students entering higher education in the years before and after the year in which the new system had been introduced. On these points he relied on Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

On 25 June 2008 the application was communicated to the Government. It was also decided that the Chamber would rule on the admissibility and the merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1 of the Convention).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Antalya.

In 1995 he enrolled at a vocational high school specialised in communication. He said that he had intended to obtain a high-school diploma and then go on to study communication science at university with an eye to becoming a journalist. At the time, students holding vocational school diplomas were able, after competing on an equal footing with diploma-holders from ordinary high schools, to apply for four-year degree programmes in university faculties of communication sciences. The graduates of such faculties generally went on to hold executive posts in the media.

On 30 July 1998, when the applicant was beginning his last year at his vocational high school, the Higher Education Council (Yüksek Öğretim Kurulu – “the Council”) issued a circular based on Law no. 2547 introducing a new system amending the rules on admission to university, particularly the national entrance examination to higher education (Öğrenci Seçme Sınavı – ÖSS). For the entrance examination to the faculties of communication sciences, the final mark was made up of 79% of the marks obtained in the different examination papers and 21% of the average marks obtained at upper secondary level. The new system applied to the average obtained at upper secondary level a 0.5 weighting for candidates from ordinary high schools who had acquired knowledge in fields which, according to the circular, corresponded to the subjects taught in the faculties of communication sciences, and a 0.2 weighting for candidates from vocational high schools specialised in communication who had acquired knowledge in subjects “which did not correspond” to those taught in the said faculties.

The applicant considered that applying a weighting to the average marks used for calculating the results of the entrance examination gave an advantage to students from ordinary high schools over those from vocational schools specialised in communication. In his view the new selection system tended to direct holders of diplomas from such vocational schools into two-year technical training programmes in higher technical colleges (Meslek Yüksek Okulu), graduates from which could not, in principle, aspire to executive posts in the media.

The applicant then requested authorisation to leave the vocational high school in which he was enrolled in order to take remote ordinary high-school (açık öğretim lisesi) classes with a view to obtaining a general high school diploma.

His request was rejected by the Ministry of Education on the ground that the legislation did not allow students to move from a vocational or technical college to an ordinary high school.

On 6 June 1999 the applicant, having obtained his high school diploma, sat the national entrance examination for higher education. On 6 September 1999 he received his results, which were insufficient for access to a faculty of communication sciences. He calculated that had it not been for the 0.2 weighting on his average high school marks, that is to say without the changes introduced under the new system, the marks which he had obtained in the examination would have been sufficient for him to enrol in the faculty of communication sciences of his choice.

On 20 September 1999 he applied to the Supreme Administrative Court for judicial review of the decision in question. Relying on the principle of equality among holders of the different types of high school diplomas, he complained of the unforeseeable nature of the changes introduced under the reform carried out during his final year in secondary education and of the lack of a transitional period and retroactivity clause.

The State Counsel at the Supreme Administrative Court asked the relevant Section of the Supreme Administrative Court to declare void the clauses relating to implementation of the 30 July 1998 circular. He contended that the immediate implementation of the new rules on vocational guidance and the lack of a transitional period had had a negative impact on vocational high school students. According to the State Counsel, the authorities should have laid down transitional measures to protect such students, who had chosen their educational pathway before the new measures, and should have taken advantage of this period to provide students with more detailed information on the various vocational options.

On 1 May 2001 the 8th Section of the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s application. It began by explaining that the changes introduced in the 1998-1999 academic year provided an advantage as regards university entrance to students who wished to take a university course in a field closely related to their secondary studies. It considered that the new system took account of the changes in overall economic and social conditions, for example the new requirement of good marks in mathematics and literature for studies in law, public administration and political and social sciences.

As regards the lack of a transitional period, the 8th Section of the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the immediate implementation of the new provisions had been geared to securing equal treatment for all students and prompt improvements in educational standards at the higher education level. It also stated that the Ministry of Education had granted the students in question, as a transitional measure, the possibility of transferring mid-year to a high school which corresponded more closely to their vocational options.

By a judgment of 20 November 2003, served on the applicant on 25 February 2004, the combined sections of the Supreme Administrative Court, endorsing the arguments of the 8th section, rejected an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant.

In the meantime, as of September 2000, by which date the applicant had already completed his secondary studies for over a year, the Higher Education Council introduced a facility for transferring, under specified conditions, from a vocational to an ordinary high school, having realised that the lack of transitional measures had been negatively impacting students from vocational schools.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-122497_a2_e1
001-122497_a2_em1
ORG
NO_MASK
001-122497_a2_em5
Republic of Turkey
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e2
001-122497_a2_em2
DEM
QUASI
Turkish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e3
001-122497_a2_em3
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Bekir Güven Altınay
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e4
001-122497_a2_em4
DATETIME
QUASI
16 August 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e1
001-122497_a2_em5
ORG
NO_MASK
Turkish Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-122497_a2_e5
001-122497_a2_em6
MISC
QUASI
vocational high school diploma
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e6
001-122497_a2_em7
DATETIME
QUASI
25 June 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e7
001-122497_a2_em8
DATETIME
QUASI
1981
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e8
001-122497_a2_em9
LOC
QUASI
Antalya
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e9
001-122497_a2_em10
DATETIME
QUASI
1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-122497_a2_e10
001-122497_a2_em11
MISC
QUASI
vocational high school specialised in communication
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-122497_a2_e11
001-122497_a2_em12
MISC
QUASI
communication science
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-122497_a2_e12
001-122497_a2_em13
DEM
QUASI
journalist
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-122497_a2_e13
001-122497_a2_em14
MISC
QUASI
vocational school diplomas
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e14
001-122497_a2_em15
DATETIME
QUASI
30 July 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-122497_a2_e15
001-122497_a2_em16
MISC
NO_MASK
vocational high school
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e16
001-122497_a2_em17
ORG
NO_MASK
Higher Education Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-122497_a2_e16
001-122497_a2_em18
ORG
NO_MASK
001-122497_a2_em17
Yüksek Öğretim Kurulu
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e17
001-122497_a2_em19
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
79%
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e18
001-122497_a2_em20
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
21%
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e15
001-122497_a2_em21
MISC
NO_MASK
vocational high school
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e19
001-122497_a2_em22
ORG
NO_MASK
Ministry of Education
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e20
001-122497_a2_em23
DATETIME
QUASI
6 June 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e21
001-122497_a2_em24
DATETIME
QUASI
6 September 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e22
001-122497_a2_em25
DATETIME
QUASI
20 September 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e23
001-122497_a2_em26
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Administrative Court for judicial review
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e24
001-122497_a2_em27
ORG
NO_MASK
State Counsel
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e25
001-122497_a2_em28
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e14
001-122497_a2_em29
DATETIME
QUASI
30 July 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e15
001-122497_a2_em30
MISC
NO_MASK
vocational high school
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e24
001-122497_a2_em31
ORG
NO_MASK
State Counsel
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e26
001-122497_a2_em32
DATETIME
QUASI
1 May 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-122497_a2_e27
001-122497_a2_em33
ORG
QUASI
8th Section of the Supreme Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e28
001-122497_a2_em34
DATETIME
QUASI
1998-1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e27
001-122497_a2_em35
ORG
QUASI
8th Section of the Supreme Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e19
001-122497_a2_em36
ORG
NO_MASK
Ministry of Education
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e29
001-122497_a2_em37
DATETIME
NO_MASK
mid-year
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e30
001-122497_a2_em38
DATETIME
QUASI
20 November 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e31
001-122497_a2_em39
DATETIME
QUASI
25 February 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-122497_a2_e25
001-122497_a2_em40
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e32
001-122497_a2_em41
DATETIME
QUASI
September 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e33
001-122497_a2_em42
DATETIME
NO_MASK
over a year
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-122497_a2_e16
001-122497_a2_em43
ORG
NO_MASK
Higher Education Council
Bekir Güven Altınay
TUR
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Bekir Güven Altınay