Why does the grade actually attended differ from the official record?
A student who believes that he or she attended grades six and seven at one institution and also completed grade eight may appear in the official system as a grade six student at the transition to high school. The first question here is the legal status under which the intervening years were spent. Middle school is the primary education stage; high school is secondary education. This distinction affects both the registration rules that apply and the limit on the right to complete the current stage when citizenship is acquired later. [1, Art. 3 and 11] [3]
A missing screen record does not always show that there is no education record at all. The student may have been registered under a different identity number, a change of citizenship may not have been processed, a transfer may not have been completed, or another electronic module appropriate to the type of institution may have been used. For an international institution in particular, looking only at the e-Okul screen is inadequate; the MOBİS and the relevant MEBBİS modules and the institution’s archive must also be queried. By contrast, a statement of the grade on the school’s own web portal does not by itself create an official student record or a record of passing the grade. [2, Art. 46 and 51]
The review should begin with the following distinction:
| Problem observed | Record to examine first | Actual legal need |
|---|---|---|
| A valid registration exists but was transferred to the electronic system incorrectly | Student file, grade-passing decision, identity matching | Correction of the record and issue of the correct document |
| The student has been educated in an authorised foreign or international programme | Programme permit, education documents, course and grade information | MEB equivalence review, where necessary |
| Education was received, but the student’s admission to the institution is legally problematic | Citizenship status and registration date for each year | Separate assessment of the student’s education status and of the school’s liability |
| The institution has no permit as a school or no authority for the programme concerned | Institution opening permit, licence, programme approval | A lawful solution for continuing education and claims under private law |
| The document exists but the school will not hand it over | Archive record and written refusal | Access to the document and, where necessary, interim protection |
This table is not a guarantee of any outcome. A single file may contain more than one problem. For example, a student may initially have been admitted lawfully, later acquired Turkish citizenship and then been kept at the institution after completing the current stage. It would be wrong to assess the first year and the later years on the same grounds. [3]
How does the distinction between a foreign school and an international school affect liability?
Not every foreign school is closed to Turkish citizens
That a school teaches in a foreign language, has a foreign country in its name or is linked to a foreign organisation does not necessarily make it an international private educational institution. The categories of foreign school and international private educational institution in the legislation are separate. Whether a student may be admitted is shown not by the name used in advertising but by the legal status of the institution and the permitted programme it runs. [2, Art. 49–51] [3]
The provision of Law No. 5580 on international private educational institutions is based on foreign national students. Those who acquire Turkish citizenship while attending these institutions may continue until the end of the educational stage they are in, either at the same institution or at another international private educational institution that applies the same programme. This right, acquired during middle school, does not automatically give a right to continue at the high school stage of the same institution. [3]
The sanction introduced by Law No. 7590, published on 31 July 2026, expressly covers an international school’s registering Turkish citizens, providing them with education, or keeping those who later acquire citizenship registered beyond the statutory period. MEB’s implementing letter of 3 September 2026 also explains this distinction. The amendment cannot be read as a new general prohibition covering all private schools that teach in a foreign language. [3] [4]
The effect of school types on the right to enrol is addressed separately in our review of whether Turkish citizens may study at foreign schools. Here, by contrast, the effect of this status on the school’s commitments and possible liability is assessed.
Related article: Can Turkish Citizens Study at Foreign Schools? School Types and the 2026 Regulation.
A change of citizenship and the school’s duty to inform
The citizenship on the date of first registration and the status in the following years must be documented separately. That Turkish citizenship is among a dual citizen’s citizenships does not give licence to treat the student as a foreigner alone in every transaction. Nor does the fact that a Blue Card (Mavi Kart) may be accepted as an identity document in an equivalence application show, by itself, that the conditions for admission to a particular school are met. Admission to the school, the education record and equivalence are consecutive but separate legal assessments. [1, Art. 3–5] [3]
If the school knows that citizenship has been acquired, it must clearly assess when the current stage will end and which steps will be required at the next stage. The family, for its part, must notify the change of identity in good time. In a later dispute, whether the school was aware of the notification, with what explanation it had the new-year contract signed and when it disclosed the transition risk form part of the liability analysis. This assessment arises from the combined application of the registration rules and the principles of good faith and of performance of the contract as required. [3] [6, Art. 112] [10, Art. 2]
For the details of determining the date of acquiring citizenship and the current stage, our review titled the rights of a student who acquires Turkish citizenship at an international school is complementary.
Related article: The Rights of a Student Who Acquires Turkish Citizenship While Attending an International School.
Which obligations may the school have breached?
Giving correct information on the permit and the programme
The benefit that a parent expects from an educational service is not confined to the child’s attending certain lessons. It also matters that education is provided in the legal status in which the student can be admitted, that achievement and attendance information is kept, and that the documents earned are issued in an authorised manner. It cannot be assumed that an operator holding a school permit runs a different programme or stage outside the scope of that permit with the same authority. The permit and programme documents for each year must be examined. [2] [5, Art. 13–14]
Statements such as “approved by MEB”, “diploma valid in Türkiye” or “smooth transition to a Turkish school” must be made specific. It must be determined whether these words describe the school’s own permit, the recognition of a programme in a foreign country, or the individual equivalence outcome for the student. Approval of the existence of an institution is not an administrative guarantee that every student will obtain unconditional equivalence for every grade. [1] [5, Art. 13–14]
Advertising, the enrolment interview, the website and e-mail statements may matter in assessing the content of the contract. However, not every word spoken by a person outside the school automatically counts as the school’s commitment. The relationship of the person making the statement to the institution, the authority to represent it, whether the school adopted the statement and its effect on the parent’s decision to enrol must be investigated. [5, Art. 14] [6, Art. 40–48 and 116]
Related article: How to Check the MEB Permit and the Validity of the Programme Before Enrolling in a Foreign School.
Keeping official registration, attendance and achievement records
Private education legislation regulates registration and transfer procedures and electronic recording obligations. A child’s having been admitted to lessons for years, and fees having been collected, while the child’s status was left uncertain therefore cannot be trivialised as a “clerical matter”. If the missing record prevents the continuation of education, the effect of the breach on the essential purpose of the education contract is assessed. [2, Art. 24 and 51] [5, Art. 13]
The nature of the error also matters, however. A correctable identity-matching error and the admission of a student to a programme in which the student could never lawfully be registered are not the same event. In the first, the priority solution is often to enter the existing reality correctly in the record. In the second, the issue of a document that cannot officially be issued cannot be demanded; other routes are sought for the continuation of education and for making good the loss. [1, Art. 11–15] [2]
Cooperating once the risk has emerged
A school may let the dispute grow by refusing to provide the course, grade, attendance and programme documents it holds. Once the registration problem is known, the steps the institution took to correct it, the information it gave the family and the reason for any delay must be documented. Even if the initial error was minor, subsequent indifference may contribute to the loss of a further school year. This is assessed separately in terms of the increase in loss and the scope of the breach of contract. [6, Art. 112–116]
Handing over a document must be kept distinct from issuing a document that is not true. A legal solution sets out correctly the education the student has actually completed. Documents that are backdated, have no basis, or show an achievement that was not in fact earned create new risks instead of solving the equivalence problem. [1, Art. 4–5 and 12] [2]
How are a defective service, breach of contract and tort distinguished?
A legal deficiency in the educational service
Law No. 6502 treats a service’s failure to have the characteristics agreed in the contract, and legal deficiencies that reduce the expected benefit, as falling within a defective service. The lack of authority to register, of official student status or of the promised document is therefore not merely a matter of academic quality. In a concrete case it may constitute a legal defect. [5, Art. 13]
Once the conditions are met, the consumer’s optional remedies may come into play: having the service performed again, free repair of the work resulting from the service, a price reduction or rescission of the contract, together with a claim for compensation under the Turkish Code of Obligations. In an education dispute these rights cannot be applied mechanically: a lost school year cannot always be provided again in the same form, and “repair” of education that remained unrecorded is possible only to the extent that the administrative legislation permits. [5, Art. 15]
Rescission of the contract or a price reduction, and compensation for additional losses, are different items. The relationship of a claim for a full refund of fees to the educational benefit that the school actually provided and that the student could lawfully use must be explained. A defence of “the child attended lessons, so the whole service was provided” disregards the particulars of the file as much as the conclusion that “equivalence was not granted, so every payment is automatically refunded”. [5, Art. 13–15] [6, Art. 50–52 and 112]
Contractual and pre-contractual liability
Under TBK Art. 112, where an obligation is not performed at all or not properly performed, the debtor is liable for the resulting loss unless it proves that it is not at fault. This does not mean that the claimant need prove nothing. The content of the commitment, the breach, the loss and the causal link must be made concrete. The order of proof for fault under contractual liability differs from that in tort. [6, Art. 49–50 and 112]
Incorrect information on the permit or on equivalence given before a contract is even concluded matters separately in terms of frustrated reliance. An assessment of pre-contractual liability should focus on which essential information was given by whom, without turning every advertising sentence into an unlimited guarantee. If the validity of the contract is to be argued on the ground of deception, defects of will and the time limits specific to them are examined separately. [6, Art. 36–39] [10, Art. 2]
Related article: Private School Enrolment Contract: Parents’ Rights and Unfair Terms.
Does an exclusion clause protect the school completely?
The statement in a contract that “equivalence is the parent’s responsibility” may determine who is to make the application. But that statement does not of itself make lawful the school’s giving incorrect information about its permit status or failing to keep the records it was required to keep. A provision must be examined for its scope, its clarity, whether it was individually negotiated in advance and whether it creates an imbalance to the consumer’s detriment. [5, Art. 5] [6, Art. 20–25]
TBK Art. 115 sets limits on agreements excluding liability for gross negligence and on excluding slight negligence in specialist services carried out under a permit. Art. 116 is also relevant for the acts of auxiliary persons. A statement that “the staff did not carry out the transaction” or “the intermediary was to handle it” therefore does not release in every case the institution that undertook to provide the educational service. [6, Art. 115–116]
What losses can a lost school year cause?
A lost school year is not compensation on a fixed tariff
A student’s graduating a year late is a serious consequence. Nevertheless, the law contains no automatically determined compensation tariff for each lost year. The existence of a loss and its monetary amount are separate questions. It must be explained which school year was lost and why, and which expense would not have arisen if the record had been corrected or correct information had been given. [6, Art. 50–52]
| Item claimed | Link to be explained in the file |
|---|---|
| Refund or reduction of the tuition fee | Which service was legally or in fact deficient; what benefit could be preserved |
| Cost of education that had to be repeated | That the repetition resulted from the school’s breach and that the cost was necessary and reasonable |
| Extra lessons or adaptation support | Necessity for making good the deficiency and link to the breach |
| Costs of documents, translation and verification | Additional expenditure, beyond the ordinary cost of an application, incurred because of the breach |
| Difference in transport, accommodation or transfer to a new school | Necessity of the new arrangement and assessment of reasonable alternatives |
| Health and psychological support costs | Health record, actual expense and medical connection with the event |
Not all of these items can be claimed, or will be accepted, in every file. For example, the normal translation cost that would be needed for equivalence anyway is not the same as the cost of a second translation made necessary by the school’s defective document. The fact that the new school is more expensive does not in itself allow the whole difference to be charged to the former school. The necessity of the increased cost and reasonable alternatives are assessed. [6, Art. 50–52 and 114]
The same loss cannot be compensated twice
Where a refunded tuition fee, the cost of repeated education and a price difference are claimed together, overlaps in the calculation must be prevented. The same economic loss must not be claimed twice by changing the name of the claim. At the same time, not every refund shows that all additional losses have been made good. The accounting should be built on a table of periods and items explaining which need each expense met. [5, Art. 15] [6, Art. 50–52]
Adding directly to the compensation a particular salary assumed to be earned years later by a child who has not yet entered a profession runs into a serious problem of proof. If future loss of earnings is to be argued, the link between the educational delay and the concrete economic consequence, and the uncertainties, must be assessed. The court’s power to determine the loss on an equitable basis is not a power to presume entirely both the existence of the loss and the causal link. [6, Art. 50–51]
Related article: Private School Fee Refund: Enrolment Cancellation, Transfer and Deductions.
When can non-pecuniary damages be considered?
Not every breach of contract of itself requires non-pecuniary damages. The concrete infringement of the child’s personality rights, the seriousness of the event, its effect on the child’s education and social life and, where there are any, health findings are examined. Saying merely that disappointment was experienced is not the same as demonstrating the severe effects that years of uncertainty have had on the child’s personal values. [6, Art. 58]
The fee paid by the parent and the personal loss suffered by the child must also be separated. That a mother or father makes a claim as legal representative on behalf of the child does not mean acceptance that he or she personally suffered separate non-pecuniary harm. It must be clear for whom, on the basis of which legal interest, and which compensation is being claimed. [6, Art. 49 and 58] [10, Art. 335 and 342]
How are the causal link and the parent’s conduct assessed?
A link must be established between the school’s fault and the loss of grade that occurred. An equivalence refusal may rest on the nature of the programme, the impossibility of verifying a document, the student’s incomplete attendance or another condition. Basing a compensation claim only on the sentence “equivalence was not granted”, without finding out the real reason in the refusal letter, weakens the file. [1] [6, Art. 50 and 112]
If the family did not apply for a long time even though the school had issued all the documents, it is investigated which loss that delay increased. The same assessment is made where a change of citizenship was concealed, or where continuation that was not legally possible was chosen despite a clear, concrete warning. In return, the school’s professional duty of information and record-keeping is not shifted entirely onto the parent. The defence that “the parent should have investigated” is not a general rule that removes the school’s liability in every case. [6, Art. 52 and 114] [10, Art. 2]
As regards mitigation of loss, a child is not expected to be left without education. The family’s investigating a move to another school, temporary attendance or suitable supplementary education may show reasonable effort and the effect of the breach. However, expenditure that is unnecessary and incurred merely to enlarge the case file, or the unjustified refusal of an accessible way of correcting the record, may give rise to dispute in the calculation of compensation. [6, Art. 52]
Which evidence should be collected, and what does each item prove?
A separate chronology should be built for each school year
The first enrolment contract, the annual renewal documents, payment receipts, the student’s identity at that time, the programme name, the grade actually attended and the report card issued should be filed together. The date on which citizenship was acquired and the date on which the school was informed of it should be marked separately. If different legal entities or programmes operate on the same campus, it must be established to which institution each document belongs. [2] [3] [8, Art. 190 and 199]
| Evidence | What it is strong on | What it does not show on its own |
|---|---|---|
| Contract and promotional correspondence | Commitment, information given, the parties | MEB’s individual equivalence decision |
| Bank record and invoice | Payment, period, service relationship | That the grade was completed successfully |
| Report card, grade sheet, attendance record | Course and achievement history | That the issuer was authorised in every case |
| MEB system and archive reply | Official status and registration trail | All losses under private law |
| Equivalence refusal or missing-document letter | The reasoning of the administrative assessment | The school’s automatic liability for compensation |
| New school and additional expense documents | Actual economic consequence | That the whole expense arose from the former school |
Witnesses may support attendance at lessons or the statements made by the school. But witness testimony cannot create diploma authority that does not exist in law. Photographs from the class group may also show that the student was present; they do not of themselves replace a valid registration and a document of successful completion of the grade. The function of evidence in administrative equivalence and in proof under private law is different. [1, Art. 4–5] [8]
Where the documents have remained at the school
Documents in the school’s archive should be requested in writing, specifying their dates and contents. In the course of a lawsuit, production of documents and obtaining records from the relevant institutions under HMK Art. 219–221 may come into question. Where there is a risk that records will be lost or that later examination will become seriously difficult, preservation of evidence is considered. Preservation of evidence is not a step used to win the whole dispute in advance or, by itself, to obtain grade equivalence. [8, Art. 219–221 and 400–403]
If the institution has closed, the application should not be directed only at the former principal. Article 23 of the Regulation on Private Educational Institutions provides for the transfer of a closed institution’s student records to the provincial or district directorate of national education and for the measures needed for the provincial directorate to carry out the subsequent document procedures. Closure does not in itself make it impossible to investigate the education history. [2, Art. 23]
Related article: What Can Be Done If a Private School Withholds the Report Card, Transcript or Student Certificate?.
Should the outcome of a compensation case be awaited to continue education?
No. The steps that will protect the continuation of education must be pursued on their own timetable. MEB may be asked first to state in writing the current official record, the deficiency and the step that can be taken. It should be clarified whether the problem is one of correcting the record, equivalence or transfer. The new school’s final application date, the exam position and the documents needed for grade placement should be added to the file. [1] [9]
The Equivalence Regulation provides for temporary attendance, completion of documents and, in certain cases, a level determination exam in applications without documents. The 2026 Equivalence Level Determination e-Exam Guide also covers persons who cannot submit a school document obtained in Türkiye, who are of compulsory primary education age and who have no e-Okul record. However, having been registered in an earlier grade in e-Okul is not the same as having no record at all. Eligibility for the exam should not be presumed merely because there is a two-grade difference; an assessment by category should be requested from the equivalence centre. [1, Art. 4 and 15] [12, §1.1]
The general equivalence obstacle for education at institutions outside the scope of Law No. 5580 in Türkiye should be assessed together with the special transition arrangement of 2026. MEB’s announcement of 17 August 2026 opens an application opportunity until 17:00 on 31 December 2026 for students who leave the intermediate grades of foreign schools without a permit and move to public or private Turkish schools. The announcement does not lead to unlimited recognition of diplomas for everyone who has graduated, or to the school’s being regarded as lawful. [1, Art. 12] [11]
This transition opportunity may also affect the compensation file: if the loss of a school year can be prevented or reduced, the loss that occurred is determined accordingly. By contrast, securing the student’s transition does not of itself remove the school’s earlier misleading statements or the additional expenses already incurred. Making the application should not be treated as a waiver of all financial rights on its own, in the absence of an express release or waiver. [5, Art. 13–15] [6, Art. 50–52 and 132]
If an administrative refusal or placement decision is unlawful, an administrative application and an action are considered; if the school’s refusal to provide documents endangers the transition in education, appropriate protection under private law is considered separately. The conditions for a stay of execution in the administrative courts and for an interim injunction in the ordinary courts differ. Neither is granted automatically merely because an application has been made. [8, Art. 389–390] [9, Art. 27]
Related article: High School Transition for a Student with an Equivalence and Enrolment Problem: 8th Grade, LGS and Placement.
Against whom, and by which route, is a claim made?
The school company and the administration’s act are assessed separately
The other party to the contract is generally the founder of the school or the private-law person that has taken over its operation. The brand, the campus sign, an intermediary company and the person issuing the invoice may not be the same. The defendant should be selected by examining the contract, the trade registry, the licence and the payment documents together. If the personal liability of a manager or teacher is also to be asserted, the concrete act and the legal basis must be shown. [2] [6, Art. 49 and 116]
Claims for refund and compensation arising from a private school service purchased by the parent as a consumer are, as a rule, assessed within the framework of consumer law. By contrast, whether MEB’s refusal of equivalence, grade placement or registration act is unlawful is a matter for the administrative courts. A consumer court’s awarding compensation does not mean that it issues an equivalence certificate on behalf of MEB. [5, Art. 3, 73 and 83] [9, Art. 2]
For consumer disputes whose value in 2026 is below TL 186,000, the limit of the Consumer Arbitration Committee (tüketici hakem heyeti) is taken into account. For disputes equal to or above this amount, subject to exceptions, pre-litigation mediation and then the consumer court come into play. How the total of the claim is determined and by which route non-monetary claims will be heard must be examined according to the file. [7] [5, Art. 68 and 73/A]
Related article: Objections and Lawsuits Against MEB Equivalence and Grade Placement Decisions.
Can the administration also be liable?
A school’s operating without a permit or irregularly does not show that the State automatically owes compensation in every case. It must be determined which concrete duty of the administration was breached, when and how, what notifications were made, what the supervision records show and what effect the breach had on the loss. A claim under private law against the school company and an annulment action or full remedy action against the administration are not routes to be combined at random in the same petition. [9, Art. 2, 12 and 13]
Where two separate liabilities are possible, care must be taken that the same loss is not recovered twice, to consider the effect of the claims on each other and to account for the link between the proceedings. The annulment of an administrative act does not of itself prove the existence of every item of loss either. For compensation, an examination of loss and causal link is still required. [6, Art. 50–52] [9, Art. 12–13]
Why should limitation and application periods be determined at the outset?
For liability for a defective service, Article 16 of Law No. 6502 provides a two-year statute of limitations from the performance of the service, unless a longer period is provided. Where the defect has been concealed through gross negligence or fraud, the limitation provisions of that article do not apply. In education spread over years, which performance and which breach is taken as the basis may also be debated. That the problem was discovered at graduation does not necessarily mean that the period starts to run on that day for every claim. [5, Art. 16]
For general contractual claims, the ten-year period in TBK Art. 146 applies; in tort, the periods of two years from learning of the loss and ten years from the act under Art. 72, together with the possibility of a longer criminal limitation period, are considered. But changing the label of a claim to “breach of contract” does not in every case ensure that the special limitation period for defects is excluded. Competing legal grounds and starting points of the periods must be examined on the facts of the event. [6, Art. 72, 146 and 149]
The period for bringing an action against an administrative act is separate from limitation under private law. Unless a special statute provides otherwise, the general period for administrative actions is sixty days; the provisions on notification, learning of the act, administrative applications and implied rejection affect the result. It should not be assumed that a complaint to MEB, an application to CİMER (Presidential Communication Center) or talks with the school suspend all periods. [9, Art. 7, 10 and 11]
Related article: Applications, Mediation and Litigation Routes in Private School Disputes.
How is the right claim built, using two hypothetical cases?
A valid registration exists but the system shows the wrong grade
Hypothetically, the student studied for two years in an authorised programme; signed report cards, grade-passing records and the correct identity details are in the archive. The new school cannot register the student because the electronic system shows the earlier grade. The priority objective here is to compare the archive with the electronic record and have the error corrected by the competent authority. If the problem is resolved before any loss of education arises, the claim may also be limited to the delay that actually occurred and the additional expenses. A refund of the whole tuition is not an automatic result. [2] [5] [6]
The student was admitted to a programme in which admission was not legally possible
In the other hypothetical case, the institution registered a Turkish citizen student in an international programme accepting only foreigners, or took the student into unrecorded education, and told the family that the transition would be smooth. An obstacle later arises to the recognition of the document or of the education. This time correcting a screen entry alone may not be enough. The institution’s status, the commitments, the family’s knowledge, the student’s existing right to education and the concrete additional loss are examined together. While administrative solutions are being explored, the periods for claims under private law must also be protected; the appropriate applications and compensation proceedings should be pursued together. [1, Art. 12] [3] [5, Art. 13–15]
These examples are neither a real client file nor a court decision already given. Their purpose is to show why a grade difference that looks the same may call for different applications and claims.
Conclusion
When an equivalence or grade-record problem arises, an effective review sets out together the student’s real education history and the legal status of that education. A compensation calculation based on fees alone should not be made before the school’s scope of permitted activity, its registration authority, its promises, its record-keeping and the steps it took after the event have been established. [1] [2] [5]
Applications that will secure the continuation of education, the preservation of evidence and the pursuit of financial rights should be planned together. A proper file sets out the record for each school year, the cause of each item of loss, who is entitled to claim and the period that applies. In this way both the solution that will prevent the child from suffering a further loss and the redress that can be sought from the responsible person or institution become concrete. [6] [8] [9]
Frequently Asked Questions
If I paid the school but my child’s record does not appear, are the two years counted directly?
No. Payment may show the service relationship and the fee for a particular period; it does not on its own prove that the grade was completed successfully and in a legally valid manner. The education documents, the institution’s status and the relevant electronic records must be examined together. [1, Art. 4–5] [2]
Does the absence of an e-Okul record mean that the student was never registered at an international school?
Not always. The MOBİS and MEBBİS modules appropriate to the type of institution, the student file and identity matching should also be investigated. At the same time, a record on the school’s own portal is not the same as an official record. [2, Art. 46 and 51]
If equivalence is refused, can all the school fees be recovered?
The reason for the refusal, the school’s commitment and breach, the educational benefit that remains and the legal claim chosen are assessed. There may be cases in which a full refund is possible, but there is no rule of automatic full refund for every refusal. [5, Art. 13–16]
Is the school released from liability by saying that it gave no equivalence guarantee?
Not guaranteeing the individual equivalence outcome is different from failing to perform the obligations relating to the permit, registration and documents. If the school made a misleading statement or breached its own obligations, a general exclusion sentence in the contract is not by itself a sufficient defence. [5, Art. 5] [6, Art. 115–116]
May a student who acquired Turkish citizenship in middle school continue to high school at the same international school?
The protection in the law relates to the end of the current educational stage. For citizenship acquired during middle school, this provision gives no automatic right of progression to the later high school stage. The status of the institution and programme must be assessed separately. [3]
Can every student without documents close the grade gap through a level determination exam?
The Regulation and the 2026 e-Exam Guide are examined together. The Guide also covers persons who cannot submit documents in Türkiye, who are of compulsory primary education age and who have no e-Okul record. However, the position of a student with a record in an earlier grade, or any other obstacle arising from the institution’s status, is assessed separately. [1] [12]
If the school has closed, do the rights to records and compensation lapse?
There are provisions for the transfer of records to the provincial or district directorate of national education and for subsequent document procedures. For claims under private law, the position of the founder or the company, liquidation and any bankruptcy proceedings are examined separately; the closure of a school does not show that all debts end automatically. [2, Art. 22–23] [6, Art. 112]
Does a complaint to MEB suspend the limitation period for a compensation action?
It cannot be accepted that every application suspends all periods. The periods for consumer, contract, tort and administrative actions must be determined separately. The type of application and its effect on the statutory period must be checked in the concrete case. [5, Art. 16] [6, Art. 72 and 146] [9, Art. 7–11]
Sources and legal bases
- Ministry of National Education (MEB) Equivalence Regulation (Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Denklik Yönetmeliği), Official Gazette No. 32597 of 9.7.2024; in particular Art. 3–5, 11–15 and 18. Full text published by MEB.
- Ministry of National Education (MEB) Regulation on Private Educational Institutions (Özel Öğretim Kurumları Yönetmeliği); in particular Art. 22–24, 46, 49, 51 and 55. Consolidated text published by an official institution.
- MEB General Directorate of Private Educational Institutions, letter of 3.9.2026, No. E-16915068-010.99-167785270, “On Item (ğ) of the Second Paragraph of Article 7 of Law No. 5580”; application of Art. 5 and 7 of Law No. 5580. Official two-page letter.
- Law No. 7590, Art. 18 and the amendment to Art. 7 of Law No. 5580; Official Gazette of 31.7.2026. Official Gazette text.
- Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection (Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun); Art. 3, 5, 13–16, 68, 73, 73/A and 83. Current text of the Law published by the Ministry of Trade.
- Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu); Art. 20–25, 36–48, 49–52, 58, 72, 112–116, 146 and 149. Ministry of Justice legislation record; TBMM full text of the relevant basic provisions.
- Ministry of Trade, “Information Note on Consumer Arbitration Committees”; monetary jurisdiction limit for 2026. Official statement.
- Law No. 6100, Code of Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu); Art. 190, 199, 219–221, 389–390 and 400–403. Ministry of Justice legislation record.
- Law No. 2577, Administrative Procedure Law (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu); Art. 2, 7, 10–13 and 27. Ministry of Justice legislation record.
- Law No. 4721, Turkish Civil Code (Türk Medeni Kanunu); Art. 2, 335 and 342. Ministry of Justice legislation record.
- Ministry of National Education (MEB), announcement of 17.8.2026 “Equivalence Opportunity for Transition From Foreign Schools Operating Without a Permit to Turkish Schools”. Official announcement and the 31.12.2026 application limit.
- Ministry of National Education (MEB), Equivalence Level Determination e-Exam Application and Implementation Guide 2026; in particular §1.1 and §4–5. Official Guide.