CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 juin 2002

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 43 June 2002 Mürsel Eren v. Turkey (dec.) - 60856/00 Decision 6.6.2002 [Section III] Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 Right to education Annulment by authority of exam results which would have enabled applicant to enter university: admissible The applicant made several attempts to pass the national examination required to attend university. He failed three times before finally obtaining a result which enabled him to be accepted in one of the universities he had selected. However, his name was not included in the list of students having passed. The applicant wrote to the competent authority, which responded that his results had been annulled on the ground that they seemed too high in comparison with those which he had obtained in previous years. Nothing was said about the applicant being suspected of having cheated. The applicant applied to the Supreme Administrative Court and asked that the authority’s decision be suspended and annulled. The judge rapporteur in the case at the Supreme Administrative Court considered that the impugned decision should be annulled as devoid of any legal basis but despite his opinion the court decided not to annul the decision at issue. The applicant’s subsequent appeals were to no avail. Admissible under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.   © 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