Information Note on the Court’s case-law 238
March 2020
Convertito and Others v. Romania - 30547/14
Judgment 3.3.2020 [Section IV]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Annulment of State degrees in dentistry for administrative flaws during first-year registration procedure: violation
Facts – In 2003 and 2004 the applicants, five Italian nationals, began their studies after their enrolment in university dentistry courses had been accepted. The enrolment decisions, issued on behalf of the university’s President, indicated that their registrations were “pending” until letters of approval had been received from the Ministry of Education. In late 2008, or early 2009, the applicants passed Romanian language tests.
In 2009 an exchange between the university’s President and representatives of the Ministry of Education drew attention to the fact that the first applicant had still not received an acceptance letter and that the letters issued to the other four did not concern the academic year of their enrolment but the following one. However, the university senate decided to accept the Dean’s proposal to allow the five applicants to sit for the final examinations.
Thus after six years of study the applicants took the final examinations and passed them. They were awarded State degrees in dentistry. They subsequently initiated the procedure to have their degrees recognised by the Italian authorities with a view to practising in their country of origin.
In 2011 the applicants’ situation was part of an administrative audit, which found flaws in the belated issuance of the acceptance letters. Their degrees were thus annulled by the university senate at the request of the Ministry of Education. Their appeals were unsuccessful.
Law – Article 8: The annulment of the applicants’ State degrees in dentistry had entailed certain consequences not only for the way in which they had built up their social identity by developing relationships with others, but also for their professional life, since their level of qualification had been called into question and their intention of embarking upon a given career had been suddenly thwarted. In those circumstances, the measure had entailed consequences for the applicants’ enjoyment of their right to respect for their “private life”. It constituted an interference with that right, one that was in accordance with the law and pursued the legitimate aims of the prevention of disorder and the protection of the rights of others.
The decisions to enrol the students had been issued and signed by the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, before the acceptance letters and language proficiency certificates had been obtained. On the basis of those decisions the applicants had been authorised to complete a full six-year course in dentistry and to sit for the final examinations. The applicants would not have had any reason to do so if the university had refused their administrative enrolment from the outset.
On that basis, the university senate had also confirmed the legality of the applicants’ administrative situation and validated their participation in those examinations. Significant weight was to be attached, however, to the context surrounding the adoption of the relevant decisions, characterised as it was by a certain discrepancy between the views of the university administration and the Ministry of Education as regards the belated issuance of the acceptance letters. The resulting uncertainty and inconsistency could certainly not be held against the applicants.
Lastly, by annulling the applicants’ university degrees, the authorities had suddenly disrupted their professional situation, whereas there was no negative appraisal to suggest that they were not properly qualified for their work.
Thus the impugned measures had not met a pressing social need and were not proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. Accordingly, they were not necessary in a democratic society.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 10,000 to each applicant for non-pecuniary damage.
(See also Bigaeva v. Greece, 27613/05, 28 May 2009, Information Note 119; Sahin Kus v. Turkey, 33160/04, 7 June 2016, Information Note 197; Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], 76639/11, 25 September 2018, Information Note 221).
© 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