Interference with the right to education does not occur only through a decision to expel the student from school. Disciplinary measures that effectively prevent continued attendance, long-running protective measures and blocking access to the working records needed for study may also be subject to constitutional review. In addition to whether the interference is lawful, its duration, its effect on education, procedural safeguards and milder alternatives must be assessed.
This article is based on Article 42 of the Constitution (Anayasa) and on the decision in Barış Yiğit, Application No. 2016/67924, September 7, 2021. The decision does not directly concern a student disciplinary penalty. Its subject is the seizure of the computer on which a doctoral thesis was kept and the long-lasting inability to access the copy that was requested. Disciplinary proceedings and criminal investigation are discussed below as separate legal procedures.
Which areas does the right to education cover?
Article 42 of the Constitution provides that no one may be deprived of the right to education and learning. This guarantee does not mean that the education system cannot set any conditions. Admission, attendance, achievement, examination and disciplinary rules may exist. However, the application of those rules must not produce results that neutralize the essence of the right or impose a disproportionate burden on the individual.
When examining the right to education, it matters which educational process the person is taking part in and how the interference affects that process. Missing a single course, not being admitted to an exam, losing a semester and being prevented from graduating do not carry the same weight. The legal assessment must consider the concrete effect of the measure rather than only its name.
In higher education, the student's academic obligations and the institution's duty to protect the educational environment are assessed together. The right to education does not provide a general exemption from academic eligibility requirements or from lawful disciplinary rules. Nor does the institution's duty to maintain order permit unlimited sanctions without an individual act of misconduct being shown.
In what respects should a student disciplinary penalty be examined?
Legal basis, act and penalty
In disciplinary matters concerning higher education students, the provisions applicable on the date of the event must be examined, starting with Article 54 of Law No. 2547 on Higher Education (Yükseköğretim Kanunu). Because of changes to the disciplinary field and Constitutional Court annulment decisions, it is incorrect to treat an old list of regulations as current law. The date of the act and the period during which the norm was in force must be determined together.
The conduct attributed to the student must be clearly shown. General unrest within the institution does not replace proof that the student committed a specific disciplinary act. Attending a meeting, making a critical statement, violence, threats and actually obstructing educational activity are separate facts. The existence of one does not automatically prove the others.
Legal characterization: Linking a disciplinary penalty to the act described in the law matters not only for the right to education but also for legality and defense guarantees. A connection between the concrete conduct and the sanction that was never established cannot easily be cured by completing the decision later with general explanations.
Defense and reasoned assessment
The student must be able to understand what they are accused of and respond to the essential allegations. The content of the request for a defense, access to the evidence and whether the responses are assessed within the decision all matter. The mere receipt of a written defense does not show that its content was actually examined.
The decision must give reasons for the choice of penalty. The seriousness of the act, its consequences and its effect on the educational process are taken into account. The same period of suspension can have different results in different academic calendars. The fact that a compulsory course is offered only once a year, or that a thesis submission deadline is near, may make it necessary to assess the effect.
How was the right to education affected in the Barış Yiğit decision?
The computer on which the applicant's doctoral thesis was stored had been seized in the course of a criminal investigation. To be able to access his work, the applicant asked for an image of the computer to be taken and a copy to be given to him. The Constitutional Court assessed together the fact that the request remained unanswered for a long time, whether positively or negatively, and its effect on education.
In its review at §§ 46–54 of the decision, the procedural safeguards in force on the date of the seizure are separated from later periods. State of emergency regulations are also addressed with their dates; past and subsequent law are not applied as if they were a single regime. In reaching its conclusion on the right to education, the period of roughly five years and the fact that the request for a copy was left unanswered were decisive.
Direct quotation from the decision
“It is not possible to apply any measure indefinitely, or in a way that persists independently of any criterion.”
Source of the quotation: Constitutional Court, Barış Yiğit, Application No. 2016/67924, September 7, 2021, § 40.
This finding does not mean that every seizure is unlawful from the outset. It shows that the temporary nature of a protective measure and the continuing need for it must be reviewed. As time goes on the weight on the right may increase; a justification that existed at the beginning may not carry the same result at every stage.
What is the Constitutional Court's ruling?
Constitutional Court's ruling: It was unanimously held that the right to education guaranteed by Article 42 of the Constitution had been violated. To remedy the consequences of the violation, the decision was referred to the competent High Criminal Court (Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi), and non-pecuniary damages were awarded. Some of the other claims of violation were dismissed on different grounds of inadmissibility.
The decision is not a general ruling that all seized devices must be returned immediately in every case. The Constitutional Court asked that a decision be given on the applicant's request that removes the causes of the violation and complies with the constitutional principles identified (§§ 67–68). Returning the device and gaining access to a copy of the data needed for education are separate solutions.
Our assessment: Making the connection with education concrete is the main practical lesson of this decision. The applicant did not merely ask for the return of an item; he stated that it contained doctoral work and that access was necessary for his education. In this way, the consequence of the interference beyond the sphere of property became visible.
Does a criminal investigation automatically end the right to education?
No. The existence of an investigation and the conditions under which the educational process can continue are separate questions. Detention, seizure and other measures have their own statutory conditions. Their effect on education must also be assessed within the applicable legislation and the concrete possibilities available.
Being a suspect or an accused person does not permit treating the allegation as established guilt. On the other hand, the right to education is not an absolute shield that prevents all protective measures in a criminal investigation. What is required is a concrete joint examination of the purpose of the investigation and the interest arising from education.
How can milder solutions be demonstrated?
Depending on the circumstances, options such as a copy of the working file instead of the entire device, supervised access, or separating particular records may come up. Whether these are technically and legally feasible must be assessed by the competent authority. It should not be assumed that the same method is possible in every file.
An application should explain not only the request but also why that solution is necessary for education. The stage the thesis has reached, the submission date, whether another backup exists and the consequences of lack of access all matter. This information helps identify the area in which the right can be protected without harming the purpose of the measure.
How are loss of education and urgency documented?
Student certificates, the academic calendar, announcements of exams or thesis submission, advisers’ letters and earlier applications should be assessed together. It must be clearly shown which course, term or academic stage the measure affected. Rather than saying “my studies were disrupted,” the link between the lost opportunity and the measure should be established. The invitation to an equivalent examination following an exam result is discussed in the article Invitation to an equivalent examination and the right to education.
Whether the damage can be made good later matters for temporary legal protection. Waiting one term may lead to a longer delay in some programs. However, it cannot be said that every academic delay is automatically a ground for an interim measure or compensation; the conditions of the applicable procedure must be separately examined.
The dates in the documents should be consistent. The seizure, the request for a copy, the institution’s reply, the disciplinary decision, service of documents and examination dates can be shown in a single timeline. This record makes clear the relationship between the continuation of the measure and the loss of education.
How are the route of application and redress determined?
A disciplinary act and a protective measure in a criminal investigation are subject to different procedures. Depending on the nature of the act, routes such as annulment and interim protection in the administrative courts, objection to a measure in criminal procedure, or a request to the competent authority may come into play. The effect of an internal objection on the time limit for filing an action must also be separately checked.
An individual application to the Constitutional Court is, as a rule, made within thirty days after the effective remedies have been exhausted. The claim of a violation of the right to education must have been put to the ordinary authorities in substance. The Constitutional Court is neither an examination board that makes academic assessments itself nor the first authority to resolve all procedural problems.
When a violation is found, redress aims as far as possible at restoring the situation before the violation. Removing the continuing obstacle, re-examining the request against constitutional standards and, where the conditions are met, compensating the damage are different tools. The referral provision in the Barış Yiğit decision should be read within this framework.
For more details, see our articles on qualified rights in Constitutional Court decisions, declaration of belief in freedom of religion and conscience and the principle of equality and the prohibition of discrimination. For the firm’s work in this area, see the page on Constitutional Court and European Court of Human Rights applications.
Conclusion
An assessment of the right to education must consider not only the name of the measure but also its real effect on the educational process. For disciplinary penalties, what matters is the clarity of the act and the sanction; in a criminal investigation, the duration of the measure, procedural safeguards and alternative access options matter. The Barış Yiğit decision shows that keeping a temporary measure in place for an indefinite period, and leaving a concrete request for education unanswered, may give rise to a constitutional violation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the right to education be violated only in the case of expulsion from school?
No. Other measures that effectively block access to an examination or to necessary work may also be examined. The connection between the interference and education, and its seriousness, must be made concrete.
If there is a criminal investigation, is a student automatically given a disciplinary penalty?
The existence of an investigation does not mean that a disciplinary act has been proven. The applicable law, the concrete conduct, the evidence and the defense guarantees must be assessed separately.
Does the Barış Yiğit decision require the immediate return of all computers?
No. The decision focuses on access to the copy requested for education and on the request that went unanswered for a long time. Return of the device and provision of a copy are different legal solutions.
Why is it important to document the loss of a term?
It shows how serious the measure is and the need for temporary protection. The academic calendar, the term in which a course is offered and the thesis submission date make a general claim of harm concrete.
Does the Constitutional Court decide directly to award a diploma?
The function of an individual application is not to determine academic competence. Violation and redress are assessed according to the reasoning and the operative part of the decision; the same result does not arise in every education dispute.
Sources and legal bases
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası), Articles 13, 38 and 42.
- Constitutional Court, Barış Yiğit, Application No. 2016/67924, September 7, 2021, §§ 35–54, 65–69 and the operative part; the link may require a session.
- Law No. 2547 on Higher Education (Yükseköğretim Kanunu), Article 54 on student discipline; in a concrete case, the date of the act and changes to the norms must be assessed together.
- Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), Article 134; the decision examined the safeguards in force on the date of the act.
- Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Trial Procedures of the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kuruluş ve Yargılama Usulü Hakkında Kanun), Articles 45–50.
- Constitutional Court, Qualified Rights: Decision Summaries (Nitelikli Haklar: Karar Özetleri), June 2025, section on the right to education.