A rise in a foreign-language examination score does not, on its own and in every case, justify a summons to an equivalent examination. ÖSYM has the power to audit examination security. However, a summons with consequences for education and academic achievement must be justified by concrete findings. A comparison with earlier examinations does not remove the need to evaluate the candidate's explanations and the time that has passed.
In its Özcan Bayrak, Application No. 2019/14060, November 3, 2022 decision, the Constitutional Court held that the right to education of an academic who had been summoned to an equivalent examination, after a foreign-language examination taken years earlier was considered suspicious, had been violated. The decision does not make every equivalent examination unlawful. It requires that the facts justifying the exercise of the audit power be explained and that the effect of the interference on education be taken into account.
What are the limits of the power to summon to an equivalent examination?
Article 9, paragraph 8 of Law No. 6114 on Measurement, Selection and Placement Center Services (Ölçme, Seçme ve Yerleştirme Merkezi Hizmetleri Hakkında Kanun) provides that, where unusual findings arise in examination documents, electronic records or analyses, candidates may be summoned to an equivalent examination by a decision of the Board of Directors. The provision also covers the cost being borne by ÖSYM, the assessment of the validity of the earlier examination according to the result of the equivalent examination, and the consequence of not attending despite the summons.
The power here does not mean that a candidate's success may be doubted without any inquiry. The law requires that unusual findings be identified. For this reason, the data on which the review is based and the reason why the findings made a new examination necessary must be shown. Examination security is a legitimate aim, but the link between that aim and the means chosen must also be established separately.
Direct quotation from the decision
“Under the said Law, this power has been granted to ÖSYM, and the action in question has been made conditional on the establishment of unusual findings.”
Source of the quotation: Constitutional Court, Özcan Bayrak, Application No. 2019/14060, November 3, 2022, § 51. The quotation shows both the existence of the administration's power and the condition for its exercise.
Legal characterization: A summons to an equivalent examination is an administrative act concerning examination security. This act is not the same thing as a final criminal conviction for cheating. On the other hand, the absence of a criminal conviction does not mean that the administration cannot carry out any review. The material and legal conditions of the administrative act must be set out.
What happened in the Özcan Bayrak application?
The applicant was admitted to a doctoral programme after scoring 70 in the Inter-University Board Foreign Language Examination (Üniversitelerarası Kurul Yabancı Dil Sınavı) in the autumn 2005 session. The applicant completed the studies and held academic posts. After a notification from the university where the applicant had previously worked, foreign-language examination records were examined. By comparing earlier examination scores, ÖSYM summoned the applicant to an equivalent examination in 2018.
The applicant stated that a language course had been attended, private lessons taken and study intensified before the examination in which the score was obtained. The applicant also questioned how an examination taken after a long period would reflect the earlier level of foreign-language proficiency. An annulment action was dismissed. After that decision had been reviewed through the ordinary remedies, an individual application was lodged with the Constitutional Court.
Why must the processes after the summons be described separately?
After the individual application, further developments took place: a new summons to the examination, the annulment of the examination result, the annulment of the doctoral diploma and the termination of enrolment at the university. Separate actions were brought against these. Paragraphs 21–23 of the Constitutional Court's decision describe these judicial processes separately.
The primary dispute examined is the 2018 summons to an equivalent examination. Subsequent diploma and enrolment-termination actions must not be presented as cases the Constitutional Court directly concluded. Describing the history of a dispute within a decision does not mean that the same ruling was made on all of those acts.
What is the Constitutional Court's ruling?
The ruling of the Constitutional Court: the right to education, guaranteed by Article 42 of the Constitution, was held to have been violated, unanimously. For the consequences of the violation to be remedied, the case was referred to the 14th Administrative Court of Ankara for a retrial. Litigation costs were awarded in the applicant's favour. The decision contains no award of moral damages.
No separate assessment was made of the complaints concerning respect for private life and the right to a fair trial (§ 61). The decision therefore should not be presented as a finding of violation of three separate rights. The Constitutional Court's decision does not itself set a new language score, issue a diploma or annul all similar summonses. The scope of the right to respect for private life is examined in the article respect for private life and protection of personal data.
Can there be an interference with the right to education before a diploma is annulled?
The right to education protects more than the initial admission to a school. The use of education completed in accordance with the rules and the official recognition of that education also fall within the assessment. In its summons letter, the Constitutional Court took into account that failure to attend the examination was linked to the invalidation of the earlier examination and of the rights dependent on it. Access to education and disciplinary proceedings are discussed in the article right to education. The limits of disciplinary penalties and criminal investigation are discussed in the article disciplinary penalties and criminal investigation in interferences with the right to education.
Paragraph 38 of the decision explains that a close and significant risk arising over the right to education may be sufficient for an interference to exist. In the case at hand, a close and reasonable risk to the validity of the doctoral diploma was accepted. The summons was therefore not treated as an act without effect on its consequences, as if it were merely an informative letter.
This approach does not mean that every examination invitation violates the right to education. First the existence of an interference is determined; then the legal basis, the legitimate aim and necessity are examined. In the Özcan Bayrak decision, the legal basis and the legitimate aim of examination security were accepted. The violation was found because it was not shown that the interference was necessary in the concrete case.
How should a score difference and a long time interval be assessed?
Why is a statistical difference not a definitive result on its own?
The Constitutional Court recorded that the report took earlier scores and the success chart into account, and that data on item difficulty and discrimination were not available. It also noted that the reason why the question booklets and answer keys were not examined had not been explained (§ 53). Moreover, the serious findings on which the allegation was based had not been sufficiently discussed. The general scope of the duty to give reasons is described in the article right to a reasoned decision.
The applicant's explanations about the course, private lessons and intensive study were not such that they could be considered wholly meaningless. The Court assessed that these explanations should be taken into account in the circumstances (§ 58). This does not mean that a doubt can be removed by a personal statement alone. It shows that the administration must assess the comparison data together with the candidate's explanation.
Does the passage of years completely prevent review?
The decision does not say that after a certain number of years all examinations fall outside review. However, questioning a result that public authorities accepted as valid for more than twelve years, and that underpins academic achievements, calls for more serious justification. The Court stated that, in this case, the criterion of unusual findings must be applied strictly (§ 57).
Our assessment: a long period should not be used as a time-limit rule that automatically ends the power of review. Its effect falls within legal certainty and good administration. The administration must explain why it considered serious the doubt about a result it had previously recognised, and with which concrete data it found the retrospective interference necessary.
Which records should be compared when a summons act is examined?
| Record or document | Issue it clarifies |
|---|---|
| Summons letter and Board of Directors decision | The basis, scope and stated consequences of the act |
| Candidate evaluation report | The data used, the method and the nature of the unusual finding |
| Dates and results of earlier examinations | The meaning of the comparison in terms of time and type of examination |
| Course and study records | The concrete basis of the explanation for the increase in success |
| Diploma and academic records | The real effect the summons may have on education |
The table is an examination proposal prepared on the basis of the criteria in the decision. It does not mean that every listed document is necessary in every case, or that submitting them will win the case. The aim is to move the dispute out of the narrow frame in which only the difference between two scores is discussed, and to assess it together with the reasoning of the act.
If access to part of the report is not possible, the reason why that information is needed should be stated. It should not be assumed that the administration evaluated all the data it held; this should be reflected in the reasoning of the decision. Likewise, the candidate's explanations should be supported, as far as possible, by dated records.
Does filing an action against the summons remove the duty to sit the examination?
It should not be assumed that filing an action automatically stops the act from being applied. Because Article 9, paragraph 8 of Law No. 6114 regulates the consequence of not attending despite a summons, ignoring the summons may cause serious loss of rights. The route of challenge, the need for temporary legal protection and any excuse must be assessed at the same time.
Special judicial procedures may arise in disputes concerning ÖSYM examinations. Under Article 20/B of Law No. 2577, the period for bringing an action in central and joint examination procedures is ten days, and the period for appealing a final decision is five days from notification. Under this procedure, the administrative application provisions in Article 11 of the same Law do not apply. For that reason, it should not be assumed that submitting a petition to the administration suspends the period for bringing an action.
However, it cannot be said that every ÖSYM letter or every diploma procedure automatically falls within Article 20/B. The nature of the specific summons and the procedure that applies must be determined separately. If the summons act, the annulment of the result, the annulment of the diploma and the termination of enrolment are separate decisions, the notification, subject of the action and relevant remedy for each must be examined separately. For general information on bringing actions and legal remedies, see the article access to court.
An individual application to the Constitutional Court does not replace the first-instance administrative action either. After the ordinary effective remedies have been exhausted, the general thirty-day period under Law No. 6216 and the other admissibility conditions are assessed. Presenting a sample Constitutional Court decision does not automatically bring about a stay of execution or an annulment in a pending case.
Conclusion
The power to summon to an equivalent examination depends on the establishment of unusual findings and on the justification of the interference. In the Özcan Bayrak decision, the score comparison, the content of the report, the candidate's explanations, the time elapsed and academic achievements were considered together. While accepting the protection of examination security, legal review must also ask why the burden placed on the right to education is necessary. To read this alongside other decisions on qualified rights, see Constitutional Court decisions on qualified rights and freedom of expression of soldiers.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a rise in my score compared with an earlier examination enough for me to be summoned to a new examination?
Not on its own in every case. The analysis used, concrete findings, the time between the examinations and the explanations for the increase in success must be assessed together.
If many years have passed, can the examination not be audited?
The decision does not lay down such an absolute prohibition. A long period, and the educational benefits gained on the basis of that result, increase the need for a serious justification of the suspicion.
If I bring an action to annul the summons, can I avoid sitting the examination?
Filing an action alone should not be regarded as sufficient protection. The enforcement of the act, any stay of execution order and the excuse conditions must be examined. Non-attendance is a conduct to which the law attaches a consequence.
Did the Constitutional Court order that a diploma be given directly to Özcan Bayrak?
No. By finding a violation of the right to education, the Court indicated the route of a retrial for the proceedings on the summons act. The separate actions concerning the diploma and the termination of enrolment are described separately in the facts section of the decision.
Is moral damages awarded in every violation decision?
No. In this decision there is a retrial and an award of litigation costs. Litigation costs are not the same type of payment as moral damages.
Sources and legal bases
- Constitutional Court, Özcan Bayrak, Application No. 2019/14060, November 3, 2022, §§ 5–26, 33–64 and operative part. Full text access may require a session.
- Law No. 6114 on Measurement, Selection and Placement Center Services (Ölçme, Seçme ve Yerleştirme Merkezi Hizmetleri Hakkında Kanun), Article 9, paragraph 8.
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası), Articles 13 and 42.
- Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure (2577 sayılı İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu), Articles 20/B and 27; official consolidated text, accessed October 13, 2026.
- Law No. 6216, Articles 45–50.
- Constitutional Court, Qualified Rights: Summaries of Decisions (Nitelikli Haklar: Karar Özetleri), June 2025, printed pp. 130–131.