CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 mars 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB6A7F5BF { width:17.54pt; display:inline-block } .sB179EDE2 { width:121.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no.   31083/21 Ahmet Melik ÖZDEMİR against Türkiye   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 25   March 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Davor Derenčinović , President ,   Gediminas Sagatys,   Juha Lavapuro , judges , and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no. 31083/21) against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 10 June 2021 by a Turkish national, Mr Ahmet Melik Özdemir (“the applicant”), who was born in 1993, lives in Elazığ and was represented by Ms E.B. Özer, a lawyer practising in Istanbul; the decision to give notice of the complaint under Article 2 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent at the time, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, former Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns the dismissal of the applicant’s application for a certificate of equivalence in respect of his foreign diploma. It raises an issue under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 2 .     According to the case file, in November 2013 the applicant began his undergraduate studies at North American University in the United States of America. He obtained a certain number ÖZDEMİR v. TÜRKİYE of credits there and, in September 2016, transferred to Strayer University, also located in the United States, where he continued his studies. In December 2017 he obtained an undergraduate degree from Strayer University with the accumulated credits from both universities. 3.     In March 2018 the applicant applied to the Higher Education Council in Türkiye ( Yükseköğretim Kurulu – “the YÖK”), requesting a certificate of equivalence for his foreign diploma. 4.     In a letter dated 11 April 2018, the YÖK informed the applicant that its executive board had dismissed his application. The letter noted that the applicant had graduated from Strayer University after transferring 94.5   credits from North American University, an institution not recognised by the YÖK. He had graduated with a combined total of 184.5 credits, 90 of which he had obtained from Strayer University. His application had therefore been dismissed pursuant to regulation 7(6)(a) of the Regulations on recognition and equivalence of foreign higher education diplomas (“the   Regulations” – see paragraph 10 below). 5.     The applicant brought an action in the Ankara Administrative Court (“the Administrative Court”), seeking the setting aside of the YÖK’s decision to dismiss his application. He alleged, among other things, that at the time he had begun his studies, North American University had been recognised by the YÖK, and that it had been removed from the list of recognised universities at a later date. 6 .     On 20 December 2018 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s action. It noted that the applicant had begun his studies at North American University, an institution not recognised by the YÖK. He had subsequently transferred to Strayer University, where he had continued his studies in October 2016. He had accumulated 94.5 credits from the former university and 90 credits from the latter and had obtained his degree with a combined total of 184.5 credits. The Administrative Court noted that, pursuant to regulation 7(6)(a) of the Regulations, if a student graduated after transferring from an unrecognised university to a recognised one, he or she had to have completed at least 70% of the requisite credits at the recognised university in order for his or her application for a certificate of equivalence to be considered by the YÖK. Accordingly, the Administrative Court concluded that the impugned decision had been lawful as the applicant had not fulfilled that condition. 7.     On 20 December 2019 the Ankara Regional Administrative Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant against the Administrative Court’s decision. 8.     In February 2020 the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, alleging, inter alia , a violation of his right to education. 9.     On 11 December 2020 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s individual application. As regards the complaint concerning the right to education, the Constitutional Court found that there had been no interference with the rights and freedoms set forth in the Constitution and that even if there had been any interference, it had not amounted to a violation. 10 .     Regulation 7(6)(a) of the Regulations, which entered into force on 5   December 2017, provides that diploma equivalence applications are to be rejected in cases where the diploma has been obtained following studies at a university not recognised by the YÖK. If a student transfers from an unrecognised university to a recognised one, the YÖK considers the application in cases where the student has completed at least 70% of his or her credits at the recognised university. The previous version of the Regulations, which was in force between 20 February 2016 and 5   December 2017, contained a similar provision in regulation 7(5)(a) thereof. Lastly, the Regulations in force from 6 November 2010 until 20 February 2016 stipulated that an equivalence degree be granted where, inter alia , the issuing institution was recognised by the YÖK. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 11.     The applicant complained of a breach of Article 2 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention on account of the dismissal of his application for a certificate of equivalence, alleging that when he had started his studies, North American University had been recognised by the YÖK. 12.     As regards the admissibility of the application, the Government submitted that the applicant had not suffered a significant disadvantage within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention. 13 .     The Government also averred that the application was inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. They submitted that North American University had never been recognised in Türkiye. In that connection, they submitted a letter sent by the YÖK to the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice, confirming that the YÖK had never recognised the university in question. According to the letter, the YÖK had no record of issuing anyone with a certificate of equivalence for a degree obtained from that university. The letter pointed out that regulation 7(6)(a) of the Regulations had been in force since December 2017 and that the applicant had submitted his application to the YÖK in March 2018. Furthermore, the 2016 version of the Regulations had also contained a similar provision (see paragraph 10 above). 14.     The applicant disagreed with the Government’s preliminary objections. 15 .     In his application form, the applicant alleged, without providing any relevant supporting documents, that at the time he had begun his studies, North American University had been recognised by the YÖK. In his observations in response to those of the Government, the applicant did not explicitly comment on the Government’s submission that North American University had never been recognised in Türkiye. Instead, he stated that he was a graduate of North American University [ sic ] and that the university from which he had obtained his degree was recognised in Türkiye. 16.     The Court does not consider it necessary to address the Government’s first objection because the application is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons. 17.     The general principles concerning the right to education have been summarised, inter alia , in Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04 and 2 others, §§ 136-40, ECHR 2012 (extracts)). In that connection, the Court reiterates that for the right to education, which also applies to higher levels of education (see Leyla Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no.   44774/98, §§ 134-42, ECHR 2005-XI), to be effective, it is necessary that, inter alia , the individual who is the beneficiary should have the possibility of drawing profit from the education received, that is to say, 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 (ibid., §   137). The right to education also entails an obligation on Member States not to unjustifiably hinder the exercise of that right in establishments of higher education abroad ( Telek and Others v.   Türkiye , nos.   66763/17 and 2   others, § 137, 21 March 2023). 18.     In order to ensure that the restrictions that are imposed on the right to education do not curtail the right in question to such an extent as to impair its very essence and deprive it of its effectiveness, the Court must satisfy itself that they are foreseeable for those concerned and pursue a legitimate aim. Furthermore, a limitation will only be compatible with Article 2 of Protocol   No.   1 if there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (ibid., § 140, and Leyla Şahin, cited above, §   154). 19.     The Court notes at the outset that the present case does not concern recognition of studies completed within the respondent State, as the applicant pursued his studies abroad. Even assuming that the authorities’ refusal to issue him with a certificate of equivalence in respect of his foreign diploma restricted his right to education, it observes the following. 20.     As to the question whether the limitation was foreseeable to the applicant, the Court observes that in his application form, the applicant claimed that at the time he had begun his studies, North American University had been recognised by the YÖK. The Government, however, submitted that that university had never been recognised in Türkiye, providing an official letter from the YÖK in support of that submission (see paragraph 13 above). The applicant, for his part, did not provide any evidence in support of his claim (see paragraph 15 above). 21.     The Court observes that, at the time the applicant commenced his studies at North American University, the applicable legislation provided for the issuance of equivalency degrees only where the foreign educational institution issuing the diploma was recognised by the YÖK, which was not the case for North American University. Subsequently, and prior to the applicant’s transfer to a recognised university, the legislation was amended, explicitly stipulating that, where a student transferred from a unrecognised university to a recognised one, 70% of his or her credits must have been obtained from the recognised university in order for the YÖK to consider an application for a certificate of equivalence (see paragraph 10 above). It follows that, in accordance with the applicable regulations, the applicant was not entitled to a certificate of equivalence merely on the basis that he had ultimately received his degree from a university that was recognised in Türkiye, as it appears that he completed less than 70% of the requisite credits at that university (see paragraphs 6 and 10 above). 22.     The Court notes, in addition, that the provision of the Regulations pursuant to which the applicant’s application was dismissed has been in force since 5 December 2017 and that a similar provision existed in domestic law from 20 February 2016, before the applicant had even begun his studies at the second university. The Court further notes that when the applicant enrolled at North American University, no legal basis existed under the then applicable legislation for the recognition of equivalence of certificates issued by that institution, due to its non-recognition by the YÖK (see paragraphs 2, 6 and   10 above). 23.     Consequently, in the circumstances of the present case, the Court finds that the limitation on the right to education was foreseeable, as there is nothing to suggest that the applicant ever had a right to obtain official recognition of the studies that he had completed abroad (see, mutatis mutandis , Kök v. Turkey , no. 1855/02, §§ 58 ‑ 60, 19 October 2006; see also Büyükşahin v. Turkey (dec.) [Committee], no. 52490/08, § 27, 15 May 2018). 24.     The Court is further satisfied that the limitation in question pursued the legitimate aim of safeguarding the quality and integrity of recognised diplomas, thereby ensuring a sufficient level of education of their holders. Having regard to the concrete possibilities under the Regulation to obtain a recognition of foreign higher education diplomas even in cases in which the person concerned completed a part (up to 30 per cent) of his/her studies at an institution not recognised by the YÖK, the restriction was also proportionate to the aim pursued. 25.     It follows that the application is manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 2 May 2025.     Dorothee von Arnim   Davor Derenčinović   Deputy Registrar   President