Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 162
April 2013
Tarantino and Others v. Italy - 25851/09, 29284/09 and 64090/09
Judgment 2.4.2013 [Section II]
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1
Right to education
Legislation imposing entrance examination with numerus clausus for access to public and private sector university courses in medicine and dentistry: no violation
Facts – In Italy, a numerus clausus (limit on the number of candidates allowed to enter a university) applies to certain vocational faculties such as medicine and dentistry in both public and private sector universities. The applicants were all students who were unable to obtain a place in the faculties of medicine or dentistry to which they had applied. The first seven applicants failed the entrance examination. After initially obtaining a place at a faculty of dentistry, the eighth applicant was excluded from the course and required to retake the entrance examination after repeatedly failing to sit the course examinations. All eight applicants complained to the European Court of a violation of their right to education secured by Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.
Law – Article 2 of Protocol No. 1
(a) Complaint relating to all the applicants – The restrictions imposed by the entrance examination and numerus clausus under the applicable legislation had been foreseeable and conformed to the legitimate aim of achieving high levels of professionalism by ensuring a minimum and adequate education level in universities running in appropriate conditions. This was in the general interest. The case therefore turned on the question of the proportionality of the restrictions.
As to the entrance examination requirement, identifying the most meritorious students through relevant tests was a proportionate measure to ensure a minimum and adequate level of education in the universities. The Court was not competent to decide on the content or appropriateness of the tests involved.
As regards the numerus clausus, a balance had to be reached between the individual interest of the applicants and those of society at large, including other students attending the university courses. The two criteria on which the numerus clausus was based – the capacity and resource potential of universities, and society’s need for a particular profession – were in line with the Court’s case-law holding that regulation of the right to education may vary according to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals. They also had to be seen in the context of the highest (tertiary) level of education.
With respect to the first of these criteria, resource considerations were clearly relevant and undoubtedly acceptable as the right to education only applied in so far as it was available and within the limits pertaining to it. While this was particularly true where State-run universities were concerned, it was not disproportionate or arbitrary for the State to regulate access to private institutions as well, not only because the private sector in Italy was partly reliant on State subsidies, but also because regulating access could be considered necessary both to prevent arbitrary admission or exclusion and to guarantee equal treatment. The State was therefore justified in being rigorous in its regulation of the sector – especially in fields where a minimum and adequate education level was of the utmost importance – to ensure that access to private institutions was not available purely on account of the candidates’ financial means, irrespective of their qualifications and propensity for the profession. It was true also that overcrowded classes could be detrimental to the effectiveness of the education system. The first criterion was thus both legitimate and proportionate.
As to the second criterion – society’s need for a particular profession – despite the fact that it ignored relevant needs originating in a wider European Union or private context and even future local needs, the Court nevertheless considered it balanced and proportionate. Training specific categories of professionals constituted a huge investment and the Government were entitled to take action to avoid excessive public expenditure. It was reasonable for the State to aspire to the assimilation of each successful candidate into the labour market since unemployment could be considered a social burden on society at large. Nor, given that it was impossible to ascertain how many graduates might seek to exit the local market and find employment abroad, was it unreasonable for the State to base its policy on the assumption that a high percentage would remain in the country to seek employment.
Lastly, the applicants had not been denied the right to apply for other courses or to study abroad and, since there did not appear to be a limit on the number of times they could sit the entrance examination, they still had the opportunity to resit the test and, if successful, gain access to the course. In conclusion, the measures imposed were not disproportionate and the State had not exceeded its margin of appreciation.
Conclusion: no violation (six votes to one).
(b) Complaint relating only to the eighth applicant – It was not unreasonable to exclude a student from a course and require him to re-sit the entrance examination when he had failed to sit examinations for eight consecutive years, particularly given that a numerus clausus applied to the university course in question. This measure, which had achieved a balance between the interests of the eighth applicant and the interests of other candidates and the community at large was thus proportionate
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
© 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