The difference between recognition of a university and diploma equivalence
Recognition concerns acceptance of the authority of a foreign higher education institution and its program to award academic degrees. Equivalence, on the other hand, is the examination of whether a specific diploma is equivalent to the corresponding level of education and learning outcomes in Türkiye. One of the statutory bases of YÖK's authority to determine equivalence is subparagraph (p) of Article 7 of the Higher Education Law No. 2547.
This distinction also affects how an information letter that a student received before enrollment should be interpreted. A reply that the institution is recognized is not an unconditional administrative commitment that the education the person later completes will satisfy all the requirements. Whether the education is formal or distance-based, the course and practice content, the credits transferred and the actual attendance requirements may each be subject to separate assessments.
| Concept or transaction | Legal function |
|---|---|
| Recognition of the institution and program | Shows acceptance of the authority to award academic degrees |
| Diploma equivalence | Examines whether the person's diploma is equivalent in field and level |
| Admission to a profession | Subject to the conditions separately prescribed by the profession concerned |
| Judicial review | Assesses the lawfulness of the equivalence decision |
For this reason, the discussion of equivalence and the conditions for admission to the legal profession or another profession should not be treated as a single transaction. The Constitutional Court (AYM) decision examined concerns the refusal of equivalence for a foreign diploma; it did not decide all the conditions of admission to a profession.
The facts in the Özcan Zengin application
After graduating from the Justice Vocational School of Anadolu University, the applicant pursued law studies at the Iliria Royal University in Kosovo. In the reply to an application made to YÖK before enrollment, it was stated that the university was recognized and that equivalence procedures would be carried out according to the provisions of the relevant regulation. The applicant enrolled in 2015, graduated in 2018 and sought equivalence for the diploma.
YÖK refused the request on the ground that the time the applicant spent in the country of study was not sufficient for formal law education. During the proceedings, it was assessed that a total of 69 days had been spent in the country. The administrative court concluded that there was a serious deficiency in the attendance required by formal education; the decision was not set aside on appeal either. (AYM, Özcan Zengin, §§ 8–18, 83–90.)
The applicant argued that his university had no attendance requirement, that practices differ among law faculties in Türkiye as well, and that the length-of-stay condition was unforeseeable. The AYM's examination focused on the relationship between these objections, the nature of formal education and the purpose of the diploma assessment.
Which regulation was applied?
In paragraph 84 of the decision, an important temporal distinction was made. Although the court of first instance referred to the Regulation dated December 5, 2017, the AYM expressly stated that the regulation to which the applicant was subject with respect to equivalence procedures was the Regulation dated November 6, 2010. The assessment of the decision in this article rests on that historical framework.
It would not be correct to present the regulation in force today as the direct basis of a past event. Likewise, it would not be correct to assume that a finding of uncertainty under the old regulation continues unchanged today. In a current file, the date of enrollment, the date of application, the type of education and the transitional provisions must be assessed together.
Why does the length of stay in the country matter in formal education?
The AYM emphasized the importance of physical attendance at courses and practice in formal education as a rule. The fact that a foreign university does not require attendance of its own students does not by itself remove the authority of the Turkish authorities to assess, in the equivalence review, how the education was completed.
“In this context, the absence of an attendance requirement at the university where he enrolled, or the fact that attendance is not required at many law faculties in our country, does not give the applicant a right to be exempted from the attendance requirement in respect of formal education in the diploma equivalence procedures he requested.”
Direct quotation: AYM, Özcan Zengin, Application No. 2020/4244, February 23, 2022, § 85. Full text of the decision.
The court also gave weight to the fact that the regulation applied to the applicant required the passports used during the period of study. This provision was influential in finding it foreseeable that the length of stay in the country of education would be included in the review. The reasoning does not consist only of a day count; the type of education, the relevant documents and the aim of protecting the quality of national education were assessed together. (AYM, §§ 77, 85–89.)
Is 69 days a limit valid for all diplomas?
No. The decision did not establish a general rule such as "everyone who stays more than 69 days obtains equivalence" or "the diploma of everyone who stays fewer than 69 days is refused." The number is a fact relating to the law education and the applicant's travel records in this application. If the length of study, the courses exempted, the nature of the program and the rules to be applied differ, the assessment may also change.
While paragraph 88 of the decision states that there is no legislative provision on the sufficient number of days, it relies on the historical law applied to the concrete case. This statement cannot be turned into a conclusion that there is no rule at all on duration or attendance in the current legislation. In a new decision, the rule applied and the method of calculation must be shown separately.
Is an interference with the right to education the same as a violation?
The AYM accepted the refusal of the equivalence request as an interference with the right to education. This is because the effectiveness of the right to education also concerns the possibility of benefiting from the education received. However, finding an interference is the beginning of the review. Whether there is a violation is determined after the assessment of legal basis, legitimate aim and proportionality. (AYM, §§ 68–82.)
The court assessed that the concrete refusal was connected with the aim of protecting the quality of national education and that the burden placed on the applicant was not disproportionate under the circumstances of the file. The fact that equivalence procedures are subject to fundamental rights review and the finding that every refusal is unconstitutional have different results.
The ruling and the limits of the decision
The court's proportionality assessment is expressed clearly in the following sentence:
“It has been concluded that the decision refusing the applicant's diploma equivalence request is proportionate.”
Direct quotation: AYM, Özcan Zengin, Application No. 2020/4244, February 23, 2022, § 90. Full text of the decision.
The AYM unanimously held that the right to education in Article 42 of the Constitution was not violated. The complaint concerning the right to education was found admissible and examined on the merits. By contrast, the complaint concerning the right to a fair trial was found inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, and the complaint concerning the right to property as inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae. Reporting all these different outcomes as "no violation with respect to all rights" erases the procedural distinctions.
The applicant's claim that some judges attended a meeting organized by YÖK was also examined. The AYM concluded that, in the concrete file, this circumstance did not by itself show that impartiality was impaired. This assessment cannot be generalized to mean that every relationship between the administration and the judiciary is unproblematic; the nature of the fact alleged, its connection with the file and its objective basis matter. (AYM, §§ 43–51.)
The decision contains no order for retrial or for compensation in the applicant's favor. Litigation costs were left on the applicant. Nor is this decision a certificate of authority that makes all of YÖK's future refusals lawful in advance. The reasoning of each decision is reviewed within its own facts and the law to be applied.
Which documents and rules should be examined in current equivalence applications?
The file should explain how the education was completed
In an equivalence dispute, besides the diploma and transcript, the type of instruction of the program, the academic calendar, course exemptions, transferred credits and the entry and exit records for the study period should be examined together. If there is a refusal relating to physical attendance, it must be determined which periods were counted and which records were left out. The mere existence of a graduation certificate may not answer the whole dispute about the attendance condition.
YÖK's pre-enrollment reply, the university's promotional material and an intermediary's statement are also not of the same legal value. In particular, a private organization's promise of equivalence cannot be treated as equivalent to an individual act of a public authority. The recommendation here is not to guarantee an outcome; it is to set out clearly which document supports which claim.
What does the current attendance rule say?
Subparagraph (d) of the sixth paragraph of Article 7 of the official consolidated text accessed on October 13, 2026 provides that the length of presence in the country is verified against study records and that the relevant higher education legislation in Türkiye is used as the basis in determining the attendance period. The regulation states that the period cannot be less than 70 percent for each education and training term and that periods outside educational activities will not be counted. For those who complete an associate degree in Türkiye, have their courses credited and pursue a bachelor's degree abroad, an examination by the Science Field Advisory Commission on the basis of learning outcomes is separately provided for.
This current text is distinct from the 2010 regulation in the Özcan Zengin decision. A footnote to the official text also refers to court decisions annulling the 2020 amendments in respect of architects. Consequently, a uniform result for all graduates cannot be stated without taking into account the calculation of the term, the field of study and the transitional provisions. This 70 percent attendance criterion should also not be confused with the separate 70 percent rule on the institution at which the education was completed when moving from an unrecognized institution to a recognized one. (Regulation, Art. 7/6-a and d, footnote 1.)
The 2026 amendment should not be confused with the old decision
In a current review, the amendments to the Regulation published in Official Gazette No. 30261 of December 5, 2017 must be taken into account. The amendment in Official Gazette No. 33182 of February 28, 2026 provides that the document in subparagraph (ğ) of the first paragraph of Article 4 will not be requested where the language of the program studied is the same as the applicant's mother tongue. The same amendment also introduced, in the second paragraph of Article 9, an exception relating to the mother tongue for the fields covered by that provision.
This update concerns certain conditions relating to the language of instruction; it is not a provision that removes attendance in formal education or all other equivalence conditions. It should not be assumed that different subjects such as ranking of achievement, field of education and transitional provisions fall within the same exception. The historical reasoning of the Özcan Zengin decision and the current application conditions should therefore be addressed under separate headings.
Route to court and time limits against a refusal
The refusal of an equivalence request can be brought before the administrative courts with a request for annulment of the administrative act. Under Article 7 of Law No. 2577, where there is no special time limit, the general time limit for filing an action is sixty days, starting from the day after written notification. An application made under Article 11 for withdrawal or modification of the act, within the time limit for filing the action, stops the running of the period. If no reply is given within thirty days, an implied rejection arises and the remaining period runs, taking the days that elapsed earlier into account.
That a transaction relates to the field of education does not by itself mean that all disputes are subject to the court procedure specific to central examinations. An equivalence refusal, a call to an examination and an examination result may be different acts; the subject matter of the action and the special provision to be applied must be determined separately. Filing an action does not stop the act by itself. For a stay of execution, the conditions in Article 27 are assessed together.
If an application to the AYM is to be made after exhaustion of ordinary remedies, the application conditions in Law No. 6216 and, as a rule, the thirty-day time limit for individual applications must be observed. The AYM does not make a fresh academic assessment like a higher equivalence commission; it reviews the fundamental rights violation alleged.
Conclusion
In foreign diploma equivalence, recognition of the institution is one of the necessary assessments; it does not by itself show that the individual diploma satisfies all the conditions. In the Özcan Zengin decision, formal education, actual attendance, foreseeability and protection of the quality of education were assessed together, and it was held that the right to education was not violated on account of the concrete refusal. In a new dispute, however, an automatic result cannot be built on the 69 days in the historical decision; the regulation to be applied, the study records and the administration's concrete reasoning must be examined.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a diploma from a university recognized by YÖK certain to obtain equivalence?
No. Recognition of the institution and program and the grant of equivalence to a person's diploma are separate assessments. This is explained in the section on the difference between recognition and equivalence.
If the university has no attendance requirement, is the length of stay in the country unimportant?
In the Özcan Zengin decision, this defense did not provide an exemption from the attendance requirement for formal education. The nature of the program and the conditions of equivalence law are examined separately. See the section on formal education and attendance.
Does the decision set a 69-day criterion for every student?
No. 69 days is a fact in the concrete file; it is not a general minimum period or a guarantee of equivalence. This limit is discussed in the section on the meaning of the day count.
Were all language documents abolished by the 2026 amendment?
No. The amendment introduced, within the relevant articles, an exception for the situation where the program language or field and the applicant's mother tongue are the same. The scope in the section on the 2026 update should be taken into account.
Did the AYM order compensation or a retrial in this application?
No. It held that the right to education was not violated and left the costs on the applicant. See the section on the ruling and its limits.
Sources and legal bases
AYM, Özcan Zengin, Application No. 2020/4244, February 23, 2022; in particular §§ 8–18, 43–57, 68–91 and the ruling. Official link to the decision. The full text was also verified through the De Jure decision record.
AYM, Summaries of Selected Rights Decisions (Nitelikli Haklar Karar Özetleri), pp. 137–138 by printed page number. Source book. The source of the quotations is the full text of the decision.
Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, Art. 13 and 42. AYM official text.
Higher Education Law No. 2547 (2547 sayılı Yükseköğretim Kanunu), Art. 3 and 7/p. Official legislation text.
Regulation on Recognition and Equivalence of Foreign Higher Education Diplomas (Yurtdışı Yükseköğretim Diplomaları Tanıma ve Denklik Yönetmeliği), Official Gazette (RG) December 5, 2017, No. 30261; Art. 3, 4, 7/6 and 9. Official consolidated text. The regulation dated November 6, 2010 applied to the historical event was assessed through the relevant legal section of the AYM decision and § 84.
Regulation Amending the Regulation on Recognition and Equivalence of Foreign Higher Education Diplomas, RG February 28, 2026, No. 33182, Art. 1–2. Official Gazette text.
Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (2577 sayılı İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu), Art. 7, 11 and 27. Official legislation text.
Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court (6216 sayılı Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kuruluşu ve Yargılama Usulleri Hakkında Kanun), Art. 45 and 47. AYM official text.