CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 20 mai 1998

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                           Application No. 29043/95                       by Petra KARUS                       against Italy          The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 20 May 1998, the following members being present:              MM     N. BRATZA, Acting President                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs    J. LIDDY            MM     L. LOUCAIDES                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs    M. HION            Mr     R. NICOLINI              Mrs    M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 2 September 1995 by Petra KARUS against Italy and registered on 2 November 1995 under file No. 29043/95;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant is a German national, currently residing in Heidelberg. She is represented before the Commission by Mr Ernesto Vecchio, a lawyer practising in Brindisi.        The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarized as follows.        The applicant, who was studying German and Italian languages and literatures in Heidelberg, during the academic year 1993/94 attended the University of Bari within the so-called "ERASMUS" program. She later decided to continue her studies in Italy.        On an unspecified date the applicant passed the Italian language and culture exam, which foreign students are required to pass prior to enrolling in an Italian university.        On 30 November 1994 the applicant filed with the Bari University her university curriculum, on the basis of which the Faculty Council ("Consiglio di Facoltà) was to decide which part, if any, of the studies she had previously carried out in Germany could be validated, that is to say which exams she would not be required to pass again.        The applicant further paid 215,000 Italian liras - representing the first instalment of the inscription fees which amounted to 800,000 liras for foreign students - and thus enrolled in the University of Bari.        Pending the decision of the Faculty Council as to whether and how many of her German exams would be validated, the applicant did not know which courses to attend. Accordingly she did not attend any.        On 14 April 1995 the applicant finally obtained a copy of the decision of the Faculty Council, dated 14 February 1995, whereby only two exams passed in Germany had been validated ("history of the Italian language" and "history of the German language").        In the light of this decision and, in particular, of the consequent necessity for her to pass again all the basic German grammar and language exams, the applicant decided to abandon her studies in Italy.     COMPLAINTS   1.    The applicant complains, under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, that her right to education was violated. She submits that the delay of the university administration in providing her with a decision as to which of her previous exams would be validated effectively prevented her from attending classes since she did not know which exams she would have to pass at the end of the year. She also complains about the merits of such decision.   2.    The applicant further points out that an Italian student has to pay an inscription fee which may vary between 0 and 900,000 Italian liras depending upon criteria such as the student's family income, the student's university curriculum, the student's place of origin etc., whereas a foreign student has to pay a fixed amount of 800,000 Italian liras, which can be reduced by a maximum of 50% if the student submits a certificate of indigence issued by the competent consulate.      The applicant thus complains that foreign students are discriminated against in the enjoyment of their right to education, and invokes Article 14 of the Convention.   3.    The applicant finally complains, under Article 13, that there are no remedies in Italian law to complain about the delays of the university administration in deciding on her request to have the previous exams validated; that there are no remedies to seek redress of the merit of such decision and finally that there are no remedies in respect of the above-mentioned discrimination against foreign students.     THE LAW   1.    The applicant complains, under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2), that her right to education was violated.        Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) to the Convention, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:        "No person shall be denied the right to education."        The Commission recalls the Convention organs' case-law according to which Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) guarantees, in the first place, the right to access to educational institutions existing at a given time, and the possibility of drawing benefit from the education received. This right "by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and place according to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals. It goes without saying that such regulation must never injure the substance of the right to education nor conflict with other rights enshrined in the Convention" (Eur. Court HR, Belgian Linguistic judgment of 23 July 1968, Series A no. 6, pp. 30-32, paras. 3-5; No. 14688/89, Dec. 4.12.89, D.R. 64, p. 188).        The Commission further recalls that from this provision flows "the right to obtain, in conformity with the rules in force in each State and in one form or another, official recognition of the studies which he or she has completed". The recognition of completed studies may be subject to an examination, in conformity with the rules in force in each State (see. Eur. Court HR, Belgian Linguistic judgment, loc. cit., pp. 31, 84).        The Commission recalls on the other hand that the right to education contemplated in Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) mainly concerns elementary education and not necessarily specialist advanced studies (see, amongst others, No. 24515/94, Dec. 17.1.96, D.R. 84, p. 98; No. 14524/89, Dec. 6.1.93, D.R. 74, p. 14).        In the present case, the Commission notes that the applicant has not been denied access to education, since she was allowed to enrol in the University of Bari. The Commission further notes that the applicant had to undergo an examination in Italian language and culture, and was subsequently invited to submit her university curriculum to the Faculty Council in order for the latter to proceed to the possible validation of the applicant's previous studies, which is in accordance with the rules in force in Italy (see mutatis mutandis No. 7864/77, Dec. 9.10.78, D.R. 16, p. 82). The Commission observes that the applicant's previous studies were in fact partly validated.      The point at issue is thus only the validation of specific exams completed abroad.        The Commission considers however that, even assuming that a right to obtain recognition of studies completed abroad or even of part of the studies completed abroad may be derived from Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2), Article 2 (Art. 2) cannot be interpreted as guaranteeing the right to obtain the validation of each exam completed abroad.        It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.    The applicant alleges discrimination against foreign students, to the extent that the rules governing admission fees are different for Italian nationals and foreigners.        In particular, the applicant points out that an Italian student has to pay an admission fee which may vary between 0 and 900,000 Italian liras depending upon criteria such as the student's family income, the student's university curriculum, the student's place of origin etc., whereas a foreign student has to pay a fixed amount of 800,000 Italian liras, which can be reduced by a maximum of 50% if the student submits a certificate of indigence issued by the competent consulate.        Article 14 (Art. 14)of the Convention is worded as follows:        "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this      Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground      such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other      opinion, national or social origin, association with a national      minority, property, birth or status."        The Commission recalls in the first place that Article 14 (Art. 14) has no independent existence, but plays an important role by complementing the other normative provisions of the Convention. A measure which is in itself in conformity with one of the normative provisions of the Convention may, however, infringe that provision taken in conjunction with Article 14 (Art. 14) if it is applied in a discriminatory manner. It is therefore sufficient for the subject- matter of the application to fall within the scope of an Article which protects a particular freedom for it to be validly alleged that there has been a violation of the principle of non-discrimination (see Eur. Court HR, Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, pp. 15-16, para. 32).        The Commission observes that in the present case the applicant complains of the difference in the way the university tuition fees are calculated for national and non-national students in Italy. The discrimination is therefore invoked in respect of the right of access to tertiary education.        Insofar as the complaint relates to the fact that it is left for the consulates to assess the financial situation of the students, the Commission considers that, even assuming that Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) guarantees the right for foreigners to enrol in universities abroad, the difference in treatment is founded on the objective difficulties the University administration would encounter should it have itself to assess the financial situation of the students. The relevant consulates are clearly best placed to make this assessment. The difference in treatment has therefore, in the Commission's opinion, an objective and reasonable basis.      It is true that, unlike Italian students who qualify on financial grounds, foreign students cannot obtain full exemption in respect of tuition fees. However, the Commission considers that this difference in treatment has an objective and reasonable justification, namely the much higher degree of probability that foreign students will leave Italy on completion of their studies, whereas students of Italian nationality are, as a general proposition, more likely to remain in Italy where, by applying the knowledge and skills which they have acquired at public expense, they will be able to make a valuable contribution to Italian society and in this manner repay, albeit in an indirect and unquantifiable way, the financial investment from which they have benefited.        Insofar as the complaint relates to the fact that foreign students might have to pay higher fees than national students, the Commission observes that the applicant has neither shown nor alleged that she was effectively affected, namely that she would have paid less had she been treated as a national student. The Commission therefore finds that this aspect of the complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the provisions invoked.        It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   3.    The applicant further invokes Article 13 (Art. 13).        Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention requires a remedy in domestic law where an individual has an arguable claim to be the victim of a violation of his rights under the Convention. An arguable claim falls to be considered on the particular facts of each case and the nature of the legal issue raised (cf. Eur. Court HR, Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" v. Austria judgment of 21 June 1988, Series A no. 139, p. 11, paras. 25, 27).        In the light of its finding above in respect of the applicant's complaints under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) and under that provision taken in conjunction with Article 14 (Art. P1-2+14) of the Convention, the Commission does not find any prima facie issues under the above-mentioned articles which could be considered as "arguable claims" within the meaning of Article 13 (Art. 13). Consequently Article 13 (Art. 13) does not apply in respect of the applicant's complaints.        It follows that this complaint is likewise manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.          M.F. BUQUICCHIO                               N. BRATZA         Secretary                               Acting President    to the First Chamber                       of the First Chamber