Information Note on the Court’s case-law 197
June 2016
Şahin Kuş v. Turkey - 33160/04
Judgment 7.6.2016 [Section II]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Loss of teaching post as a result of subsequent amendment of certificate recognising overseas diploma: violation
Facts – In August 1993 the Turkish Higher Education Council (YÖK) recognised the applicant’s Syrian university degree in Arabic language and literature as being equivalent to a bachelor’s degree. He consequently studied for a master’s degree at a Turkish university and graduated in October 1996.
In December 1996 the applicant was appointed as a primary school teacher by the Ministry of National Education (“the Ministry”). In May 1997 he started working as a trainee teacher at a primary school; he subsequently embarked on a teacher training course organised by the Ministry.
However, in April 1997 the YÖK decided that certificates of equivalence should no longer be issued for foreign degrees in or involving theology. In July 1997 it extended that decision to any other qualification obtained at a higher education institution where theology was taught. It also decided to cancel any certificates of equivalence it had issued previously, including the one issued to the applicant. As a result, the Ministry revoked the applicant’s appointment, and he was removed from his post in September 1997.
The applicant applied to the administrative court for judicial review of the decisions of the YÖK and the Ministry. The case was referred to the Supreme Administrative Court.
In May 1998 the YÖK amended its decision on the grounds that the applicant had already been awarded his master’s degree, and instead of cancelling the certificate endorsed it with a note to the effect that it was not valid for the appointment of primary school teachers.
In February 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court found against the applicant. None of his subsequent appeals were successful.
Law – Article 8: The cancellation and subsequent amendment of the applicant’s certificate of equivalence, together with his ensuing dismissal, could be regarded as interference with his right to respect for his private life.
By regulating access to the teaching profession, the interference in question had sought to ensure decent teaching standards in schools, in other words “the prevention of disorder” and “the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”, specifically the pupils.
The crucial issue lay in the fact that the YÖK had gone back on its initial decision to recognise the applicant’s degree as equivalent without any restrictions and ultimately had deprived him of authorisation to work as a primary school teacher.
However, the measure complained of had applied in general terms to all graduates of universities where theology was taught, without taking into account the personal circumstances of each individual concerned. After having his bachelor’s degree recognised, the applicant had successfully studied for a higher degree. His qualifications had been considered sufficient by the Ministry to appoint him to a teaching post, and after his appointment he had successfully completed his teacher training.
Above all, the authorities had amended the applicant’s certificate of equivalence four years after it had been issued, by which time he had already taken up his duties as a trainee teacher. In doing so they had caused an abrupt deterioration in the applicant’s professional situation, even though he had not been accused of any failings and there was no suggestion that he was not up to his task. They had therefore given rise to an unacceptable level of legal and personal uncertainty for the applicant, who had justifiably believed that he was entitled to practise the profession of teacher and to organise both his professional life and his private life accordingly. He had been legitimately entitled to plan for the future with confidence, being assured of his continued teaching career.
On that account, the measures complained of had not satisfied a pressing social need and had not been proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. They had therefore not been necessary in a democratic society.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 7,500 for non-pecuniary damage; claim for pecuniary damage dismissed.
© 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