The right to education protects a person's ability to access available educational opportunities effectively and prevents that access from being blocked arbitrarily. Admission, enrollment, examination, disciplinary and graduation decisions can all affect this right. However, the right to education does not mean unconditional admission to every programme a person wants, or free provision of all educational services. The legal basis of any restriction, its relation to the educational order and its effect on the student must be examined together. [1; 2]
This article is for general information only. Education at primary and secondary level, higher education, private education and education in penal enforcement institutions are subject to different regulations.
Scope and limits of the right to education
Article 42 of the Constitution provides that no one may be deprived of the right to education. Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (AİHS) protects the right to education and, in the State's exercise of its education functions, respect for parents' religious and philosophical convictions. The constitutional guarantee of education and the common sphere of protection of individual application are examined together. [1; 2]
The State may regulate the education system and set conditions for admission, achievement and discipline. The existence of a regulation alone is not a violation. However, rules must be foreseeable, must not be applied in a discriminatory way and must not destroy the essence of the right. The level of education and the nature of the service are relevant in assessing the margin of appreciation.
Equal access and special needs
Where a student is effectively excluded from education because of disability, health condition or similar needs, it may not be enough to explain this by applying the same rule to everyone. Reasonable adjustments and workable alternatives should be assessed. The need for the requested adjustment, its feasibility and the reasons for refusal should be documented.
Not every request must necessarily be granted. The institution may point to the essential requirements of education or to security conditions. However, refusing without examining the personal situation, citing only abstract cost or order considerations, can create a problem. The student or parent should provide health and expert documents to the extent necessary and should not needlessly disclose personal information.
Which aspects of a disciplinary penalty are reviewed?
A disciplinary act is reviewed for competence, procedure, cause, subject matter and purpose. Whether the alleged act occurred, whether the student's defence was taken, access to evidence and the reasoning of the decision are all important. In higher education, Article 54 of Law No. 2547 on Higher Education (Yükseköğretim Kanunu) is one of the main provisions; the text and amendments in force on the date of the incident should be applied. [3]
Removal from studies or expulsion from the institution can have serious consequences for access to education. If the same aim can be achieved with a lighter sanction, the reason why that was not chosen should be explained. The gravity of the act, repetition, the student's personal circumstances and the periods that would be lost are assessed. The practical consequences of a disciplinary penalty are as important as its name.
Criminal investigation and the disciplinary process
Opening a criminal investigation into an incident does not mean that the disciplinary authority must suspend its entire assessment. The two processes may examine different areas of responsibility. However, the facts established by a final criminal judgment and the presumption of innocence cannot be ignored. The outcome of a criminal file should not be conveyed in a single sentence; the disciplinary decision must show which act and which evidence it rests on.
A student should not limit themselves to saying that they were acquitted in the criminal case. They should explain which fact the disciplinary board could not rely on, or which evidence it misinterpreted. The institution, for its part, should not treat the mere opening of an investigation as if it were proof of guilt.
The S.Ü. decision: a severe sanction without a legal basis
In the S.Ü., Application No. 2020/34927, 6 March 2024 decision, the Constitutional Court (AYM) examined a disciplinary sanction applied in higher education from the standpoint of the right to education. The court held that the interference did not satisfy the requirement of legality, found a violation of the right to education and ordered a retrial. The other alleged violations were not examined separately. [5, §§ 29–40]
The practical importance of the decision is that a regulatory act or an expansive interpretation is not, in every case, a sufficient legal basis. Nevertheless, the legislation in force at the time of the decision and the current regime under Law No. 2547 must be kept separate. A finding of violation concerning an earlier regulation does not automatically invalidate all student disciplinary sanctions imposed today.
Education in a penal enforcement institution
Being in pretrial detention or serving a sentence does not entirely remove the right to education. However, the security and order conditions of the institution may affect how education is delivered. Access to lessons, books, computers or distance-education facilities is examined together with the alternatives offered by the institution.
Mehmet Reşit Arslan and Others, Application No. 2013/583, 10 December 2014 evaluated restrictions on the use of a distance-education room. In that file, the Constitutional Court found no violation of the right to education in view of the facilities offered and the security grounds. The decision shows the limits of an education request that is raised without demonstrating the personal need and the actual effect of the restriction. [6, §§ 78–87]
Mehmet Reşit Arslan (7), Application No. 2014/15734, 20 December 2017 is also important for admissibility assessments, showing that the right to education does not provide unlimited access to every technical tool that is requested. The institution's concrete facilities and whether education could be continued by other means should be explained. [7]
These decisions concern historical files. Current enforcement legislation and technological facilities should be examined separately; the computer-use conditions in an earlier decision cannot be applied as they are to every institution today.
Where to apply and how the time limit is determined
| Dispute | Route of application | Critical distinction |
|---|---|---|
| Administrative act of a public educational institution | Specific objection and administrative action | Notification, specific time limit and enforcement of the act |
| Student disciplinary penalty | Objection and judicial remedy under the relevant regulation | Regulation in force on the date of the incident |
| Dispute with a private institution over fees or a contract | Consumer or private-law route, depending on the nature of the dispute | Separating the right to education from a contractual claim |
| Access to education in a penal enforcement institution | Enforcement judgeship | Time limit for complaining about the act and the conditions |
Under the general rule of administrative litigation, the time limit for filing an action is sixty days from written notification, unless a specific provision says otherwise. The effect of a specific objection or request for re-examination on that time limit should be calculated separately. Stating "I objected" does not preserve the time limit; the legal nature of the application matters. [4]
Interim protection before the end of the education period
Filing an action does not automatically suspend the act. If the student cannot sit an examination, loses a semester or faces delayed graduation, a stay of execution may be requested under Article 27 of Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK). Clear unlawfulness, together with serious or irreparable harm, must be made concrete. The examination timetable, attendance limit and graduation requirements can support this request. [4]
In a complaint to the enforcement judgeship, the general time limit is fifteen days from learning of the act and, in any event, thirty days from the act. The complaint should state that the education programme is continuing and clearly set out the act and its consequences. A complaint does not automatically have a suspensive effect. [8]
Which documents should be in the application file?
Enrollment and student-status documents, the act or disciplinary decision, investigation notices, the defence, requests for evidence, notifications, the lesson and examination timetable, academic standing and any previous applications should be organised. The real effect on the student's education must be shown by identifying the course, examination or term to which the student cannot gain access.
The institution's counter-arguments should be answered directly. In a security claim, the concreteness of the risk is discussed; in an achievement condition, the grade and examination records; in a disciplinary claim, whether the incident can be attributed to the person. The abstract sentence "my right to education has been obstructed" is not enough to show a deficiency in the reasons for the act.
Claims for damages should not assume an automatic refund of the whole tuition fee or the loss of all future earnings. Expenses, loss of a term and other consequences should be documented with a causal link. If an annulment decision is given, the practical consequences, such as student status, examination rights and the disciplinary record, should be followed separately.
The ECtHR decision on different facts and the outcome of a violation
In the Mehmet Reşit Arslan and Orhan Bingöl v. Türkiye, Application Nos. 47121/06, 13988/07 and 34750/07, 18 June 2019 decision of the European Court of Human Rights (AİHM), the failure to assess adequately requests for computer and internet access, together with the concrete need for education and the security conditions, constituted a violation of the right to education. The Court found that the national authorities had not struck the required balance between the competing interests. [12, §§ 63–72]
This ECtHR file should not be presented as an appeal review of the same events as the Constitutional Court decisions above. The application numbers, periods and restrictions are different. Read together, the decisions show that a complete refusal of educational requests in prison must be distinguished from the limitation of a specific period of use or of a single shipment.
The Constitutional Court and ECtHR stages
An individual application to the Constitutional Court is, as a rule, made within thirty days after the effective remedies have been exhausted. The application should show how the judicial authorities failed to assess the right to education, or which disproportionate result they approved. The applicant's and the parent's status as victim, and the representation relationship, should be regulated separately. The child's personal data should be used only to the extent the application requires. [9]
Lawyers may apply through the UYAP Lawyer Portal. The final decision, the notification and the relevant annexes must be completed, and the submission should be checked to confirm that it was actually made. An individual application does not automatically return the person to ongoing education. Appropriate remedies may be a retrial, a finding of violation or, where the conditions are met, compensation. [9; 10]
For the ECtHR, exhaustion of domestic remedies and the general four-month time limit are also important. The Court is not a higher education board that re-regulates every educational choice; it examines the alleged violation under the Convention. [2]
For procedural safeguards, see our articles on the right to a fair trial and the right of access to court.
The importance of actually accessing education
The systematic review by Ümit Binbir and Gökhan Arastaman shows that problems with the right to education are not limited to admission and disciplinary procedures; disability, economic conditions and other disadvantages can also affect continued participation in education. This academic finding alone does not show that a violation has been found in a particular file. The application must explain which concrete need was reported to the administration, which access barrier continues and what kind of arrangement is requested. [11]
Identifying the right applicant and procedure in an education dispute
The student's right and the parent's own right
The owner of a complaint about access to education is the student. In an application made on behalf of a minor, the legal representation relationship must be shown; an application by a parent in their own name concerning an adult student is not the same as the student's application. A request to respect the parent's religious and philosophical convictions may be assessed under its own legal conditions. The applicant's identity, representation authority and the right allegedly violated must be clear in the form. [1; 2; 9]
The subject of the administrative act must also be defined precisely. A refusal of an admission request, an examination result, a disciplinary penalty, expulsion from the institution and diploma matters each rest on different facts. Annulling one act does not automatically remove all the consequences of another. The effects on the student's continuing education, lessons, examination timetable and graduation should be recorded together.
Reliance on an outdated regulation in student discipline
In disciplinary proceedings against university students, Article 54 of Law No. 2547 in its current form must be the basis. Directly using an old regulation text found online, or a model petition with an earlier date, can lead to errors regarding the legal basis of the sanction and the application procedure. The date of the act, the provision applied, the decision-making body and the notification of the decision should be checked together. The secondary-education and higher-education regimes also cannot be used interchangeably. [3; 5]
It is examined whether the notice of defence sufficiently explained the allegation, whether the student was given the opportunity to prepare a defence, and what evidence the decision actually relied on. Being present at the scene of an incident is not the same as committing the disciplinary act. In files relating to a group incident, determining individual conduct is especially important. Where the result of a criminal trial exists, its effect on the disciplinary decision is discussed through the reasoning of the decision and the facts it rests on.
How to frame the request to prevent loss of education
In an application for a stay of execution, saying only "my right to education is being violated" may not be enough. It should be shown which examination cannot be taken, which course will have to be repeated, how the loss of a term will occur and why a later remedy would become difficult. The claim of unlawfulness should be tied to the concrete element among authority, legal basis, procedural safeguards, evidence or proportionality. The two conditions of Article 27 of İYUK are assessed together. [4]
Where the claim is that a person cannot effectively access education because of disability or special needs, it should be explained what arrangement is sought and how it was communicated to the institution. Being able to enter the building is as important as being able to use lessons, examinations and educational tools. If the request is refused, the reasons for refusal, the alternatives and the disadvantage experienced by the student should be documented. The student's real need and the institution's concrete explanation are assessed together, without assuming that every access problem requires the same solution. [1; 2; 11]
For a claim of material damage, items such as the fee paid, additional accommodation or transport expenses should be documented. A delay in graduation does not automatically prove all future loss of earnings. The causal link between the violation and the damage must be established, and redress that will restore access to education should be separated from a claim for compensation.
The boundary between academic evaluation and constitutional review
The right to education does not guarantee that every student will obtain a particular grade or be admitted without conditions to the programme of their choice. Admission, achievement and attendance conditions may exist. The constitutional issue arises from the legal basis of these conditions, the foreseeability of their application and the burden they place on the person. If the application only says that the grade was low, the dispute may remain at the level of academic assessment. A later change to an announced criterion, or different treatment of similar students without explanation, are separate facts that must be examined.
For that reason, the criterion used in an examination or admission dispute should be documented: when it was announced to the student, and how it was applied in the specific act. The courts or the Constitutional Court should not be expected to take the place of the lecturer and assign a grade. The issue raised may be the lawfulness of the assessment procedure or the absence of effective judicial review. Framing the request in this way helps keep a constitutional application from being seen only as dissatisfaction with the outcome. The article on being called to an equivalent examination and the right to education examines a call to an equivalent examination based on a foreign-language examination result.
The link between the act, the sanction and the defence in a disciplinary file
The student must be clearly told which conduct is attributed to them. Imposing a severe sanction in a general account of events, without stating what the person personally did, makes preparing a defence more difficult. In an investigation against several students, each student's position must be shown separately. A joint record does not mean that all persons performed the same act. The scope of the allegation, the supporting records and the personal statements should be linked in the defence. [3]
When examining the legal basis of a sanction, the date of the act and the date of the decision must be distinguished. A change in the regulation does not mean that the old text may automatically be applied, or that the new text corrects all past proceedings. The legality review in the S.Ü. decision shows the need for a sufficient legal basis for a serious interference with the right to education. However, the outcome of that decision cannot be generalised to mean that the same penalty may never be applied in a disciplinary file; the relevant norm at the time and the concrete sanction must be examined together. [3, 5]
Differences between the defence notice, the student's statement, the investigation report and the decision are also significant. If the decision relies on a fact different from the one on which a defence was requested, the effect on the student's opportunity to respond should be explained. If an essential record was added to the file later, it should be checked whether it was notified to the student. The procedural objection can thus go beyond the sentence "my right of defence was restricted".
Why did decisions on education in penal enforcement institutions reach different outcomes?
In the Mehmet Reşit Arslan applications, different dimensions of access to educational tools were assessed. Computer-use time, the admission of a specific digital content to the institution and access to the tools necessary for education are not the same matter. Combining the decisions merely by the applicant's name leads to confusion between facts and reasoning. In each decision, the facility requested, the alternative offered by the institution and the reasoning for the restriction should be read separately. [6, 7, 12]
The Constitutional Court's assessment of computer-use time, or its finding that a complaint about a CD sent by a relative was inadmissible, does not mean that all educational requests in prison may be refused. The ECtHR's finding of violation in different applications is also not a general order that every computer or internet request must be accepted unconditionally. The essential question is whether the balance between the concrete requirements of education and institutional order was adequate. It should be stated specifically that decisions given in the name of the same applicant may rest on different facts. [6, 7, 12]
In this type of file, the letter from the educational institution matters. Clarifying which tool is used for the course, how assignments are submitted and what the examination requires shows how the request relates to education. A request of a purely personal-preference nature is distinguished from the facilities needed to continue the programme. If the institution offered an alternative, it should be explained whether that alternative actually allowed education to continue. The existence or absence of an alternative alone does not end the examination.
Framing the loss of a term and the claim for redress
Where it is claimed that an education period was missed, the registration calendar, prerequisite courses, examination dates and the effect on graduation should be shown. It should not be assumed that every delay causes the same length of lost education. Some courses can be taken the following term, while others may be offered only once a year. This difference affects the urgency of the interim protection request and the scope of the damage alleged. The request before the administrative court should be framed in connection with the relevant conditions of İYUK. [4]
If compensation is claimed, the connection of items such as tuition, accommodation or additional education expenses to the act should be explained. Hypothetical future earnings and documented expenses do not meet the same standard of proof. A finding of violation or an annulment does not mean that every amount claimed will automatically be paid. The act enabling the student to rejoin education, and the remedy for the past loss, should be assessed together according to the circumstances of the file. [4, 9]
For more on these subjects, see our articles on freedom of religion and conscience, the principle of equality and the prohibition of discrimination and fundamental rights in Constitutional Court decisions. For our work in this area, see the page on Constitutional Court and ECtHR applications.
Conclusion
In a dispute over the right to education, the passage of time can create lost terms and examinations that are difficult to remedy later. The application should therefore show both the legal defect of the act and its real effect on education. The right path is current legislation and a timely request for interim protection; these form the practical basis of the constitutional defence.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the right to education guarantee unconditional admission to the desired university?
No. Lawful and non-discriminatory admission and achievement conditions may apply.
Does filing a lawsuit against a disciplinary penalty stop the penalty?
As a rule, no. If the conditions are met, a stay of execution must be requested separately.
Does an acquittal in a criminal case automatically remove a disciplinary penalty?
Not in every case. The facts established by the judgment and the basis of the disciplinary charge are examined together.
Does the right to education end in prison?
No. Effective access that is compatible with security and order is assessed.
Can a parent make every complaint in their own name?
The student's right, the parent's own right and legal representation must be kept separate.
Can compensation be requested for the loss of a term?
It can, if the conditions are met. The occurrence of the damage and its connection with the act must be documented.
Sources and legal bases
[1] Constitution (Anayasa), Articles 10, 13, 42. Text.
[2] European Convention on Human Rights (AİHS), Article 35; Protocol No. 1, Article 2. Text.
[3] Law No. 2547 on Higher Education (Yükseköğretim Kanunu), Article 54. Text.
[4] Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure (İYUK), Articles 7, 11, 27. Text.
[5] Constitutional Court, S.Ü., Application No. 2020/34927, 6 March 2024. Decision.
[6] Constitutional Court, Mehmet Reşit Arslan and Others, Application No. 2013/583, 10 December 2014. Decision.
[7] Constitutional Court, Mehmet Reşit Arslan (7), Application No. 2014/15734, 20 December 2017. Decision.
[8] Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu), Articles 4–6. Text.
[9] Law No. 6216, Articles 45–50. Text.
[10] Constitutional Court, UYAP Lawyer Portal application guide (UYAP Avukat Portalı başvuru kılavuzu). Guide.
[11] Ümit Binbir and Gökhan Arastaman, "Right to Education: A Systematic Review Study" ("Eğitim Hakkı: Bir Sistematik Derleme Çalışması"), OPUS, 18, Special Issue on Educational Sciences, 2021, pp. 5067–5098. Study.
[12] ECtHR (AİHM), Mehmet Reşit Arslan and Orhan Bingöl v. Türkiye, Application Nos. 47121/06, 13988/07 and 34750/07, 18 June 2019; final 7 October 2019. Decision.