Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 165
July 2013
Altınay v. Turkey - 37222/04
Judgment 9.7.2013 [Section II]
Article 14
Discrimination
Unexpected change, without corrective transitional provisions, in rules governing access to university: violation
Facts – In 1995 the applicant enrolled in a vocational high school specialised in communication science. Graduates from vocational training schools were able, on an equal footing with graduates from ordinary upper secondary schools, to apply to universities specialising in communication studies, which opened the door to high-level posts in the media. In July 1998 the Higher Education Council issued a circular introducing new rules on admission to university, applying a coefficient of 0.5 to the average marks scored by pupils at ordinary upper secondary schools and a coefficient of 0.2 to the marks of pupils at specialised communication schools. The applicant applied to leave the specialised school where he was studying and move to a school with a general curriculum. His application was refused. He failed the faculty of communication studies entrance examination, but calculated that without the coefficient his marks would have been good enough to pass. He appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, which rejected his appeal. The following year it became possible for pupils from vocational training schools to switch to a school with a general curriculum, entitling them to the higher coefficient.
Law – Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1
(a) Differential treatment in access to university because of the application of different coefficients to the marks of graduates from vocational training schools and graduates from ordinary high schools – The applicant had suffered a difference of treatment in the exercise of his right of access to higher education under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 because of the weighting system applied to the marks obtained by candidates in different types of upper secondary school.
The new selection system answered the need to guarantee a higher standard in higher education. However, in European countries the trend was to broaden access to university by extending the admission criteria beyond the usual upper secondary school diplomas to include vocational training school diplomas, for example. In vocational training schools specialising in communication science, the teaching of basic subjects like mathematics, science or the social sciences had gradually diminished to the point of disappearing altogether from the curriculum. It could be difficult for upper secondary education truncated in this way to achieve the goal of high-level vocational training. The Court thus accepted that while waiting for vocational training to attain the level required for higher education, which necessitated investment by the State in pre-university vocational training, the State could take the type of upper secondary establishment into account for the purposes of access to university. So a selection system that privileged pupils from ordinary upper secondary schools pursued the legitimate aim of improving the level of university studies.
The weighting coefficient introduced into the university admission process was applied to candidates depending on the type of upper secondary school they opted for. Pupils from vocational training schools took the national university entrance examinations on an equal footing with pupils from ordinary upper secondary schools and their exams were marked in the same way. A coefficient was then applied to their average score, the coefficient applied to pupils from vocational schools being lower than that applied to pupils from ordinary schools. Pupils entering upper secondary education could choose between a school with a general curriculum and a vocational training school where the curriculum was limited to a specific field of study. So the difference of treatment in issue, in so far as it concerned the distinction between non-specialised schools and vocational training schools was reasonably proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, which was to improve standards in higher education.
Conclusion: no violation (five votes to two).
(b) Differential treatment of the applicant compared with pupils who graduated from upper secondary school in the years before him, or in subsequent years, because of the introduction, several years after he had chosen to attend a vocational training school, of new conditions of access to university, with no transitional measures – Changes had been made to the conditions of access to university without any provision for transitional measures, so the applicant had been treated differently from pupils who had graduated from upper secondary school in the years before and after him. The purpose of the immediate application of the new conditions was to rapidly improve the quality of higher education.
Regard being had to the teaching dispensed and the 0.5 coefficient generally applied until the applicant had entered his final year of upper secondary education, the applicant had argued in good faith that he had opted to attend a school specialising in communication science in preparation for university studies in the same field and a subsequent career in journalism. The change in the conditions of access to university, placing pupils at specialised communication schools at a disadvantage when it came to going on to university to study journalism, had effectively deprived him of the possibility of entering a faculty of communication sciences. In spite of the suddenness of the change of conditions, no corrective measures had been applied to the applicant. First of all his request to move to a school with a general curriculum had been refused outright, whereas the legislation actually provided for such a possibility, but had not been applied in practice until the school year following the introduction of the new rules. Furthermore, the syllabus taught in the final year of the specialised upper secondary school the applicant had attended had not been adjusted to the new standards required for admission to a faculty of communication science. Considering the lack of foreseeability for the applicant of the change in the conditions of access to higher education, and the absence of any corrective measure applicable to his case, the difference of treatment complained of had limited the applicant’s right of access to higher education, depriving it of its effect, and had therefore not been reasonably proportional to the aim pursued.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage rejected.
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy