Last Updated on October 3, 2020 by LawEuro
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 39890/10
Ahmet Serhan ÖĞRETMENOĞLU
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19 June 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Ledi Bianku, President,
Nebojša Vučinić,
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 June 2010,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Ahmet SerhanÖğretmenoğlu, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1973 and lives in Adana. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. K. Esmerten, a lawyer practising in Adana.
2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
A. The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. In 1998 the applicant graduated from the International American University in Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (“TRNC”).
5. On 27 February 2001 the Council of Higher Education (hereinafter referred to as the Council) annulled the applicant’s equivalency certificate. It held that all graduates from the International American University in the “TRNC” had to take an equivalency exam held by the Council or attend the East Mediterranean University in the “TRNC” to take additional lessons. The applicant initiated proceedings to have this decision annulled, and the case was dismissed by the Ankara Administrative Court on 28 December 2001.
6. Subsequently, on 31 August 2004 the applicant applied to the Council and asked to take the requisite additional lessons in another university in the “TRNC”. His request was rejected.
7. On 2 March 2005 the applicant initiated administrative proceedings before the Ankara Administrative Court seeking the annulment of the Council’s decision.
8. On 23 November 2005 the Ankara Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s case. In its decision the court held that as of 1999, the Council had removed the International American University from the accredited universities’ list and in order to obtain an equivalency certificate all graduates from this university had to comply with the conditions adopted by the Council.
9. On 26 October 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of 23 November 2005. During the appeal proceedings, the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Supreme Administrative Court submitted his written opinion on the merits of the case. This opinion, which was very brief and solely stated that the decision of the first instance court was in line with domestic law, was not communicated to the applicant.
10. On 10 November 2009 the applicant’s rectification request was rejected.
B. Relevant domestic law
11. A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Kılıç and others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 33162/10, §§ 10-13, 3 December 2013).
COMPLAINTS
12. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the non-communication of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s written opinion during the appeal proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court had violated his right to an adversarial and fair hearing. Under the same heading, the applicant contested that the administrative proceedings had not been fair.
13. The applicant alleged under Article 14 of the Convention that he had been subjected to discrimination and further complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 that his right to education had been breached.
THE LAW
A. Complaint concerning non-communication of the Public Prosecutor’s written opinion
14. The applicant complained that the non-communication of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s written opinion during the appeal proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court had violated his right to an adversarial and fair hearing. In this respect, he relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
15. The Government rejected the allegation.
16. The Court notes that it has already examined the same issue in the case of Kılıç andothers v. Turkey((dec.), no. 33162/10, §§ 19‑32, 3 December 2013) and considered that the applicants had not suffered a significant disadvantage. Accordingly, it has declared this complaint inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention.
17. Having in particular regard to the content of the written opinion filed by the Chief Public Prosecutor in the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court, the Court finds no particular reasons in the present application which would require it to depart from its findings in the aforementioned case.
18. In the light of the foregoing, this complaint is inadmissible and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (b) and 4 of the Convention.
B. Remaining complaints
19. The applicant raised further complaints under Articles 6, 14 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
20. In the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court concludes that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. Accordingly, the Court rejects them as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 12 July 2018.
Hasan Bakırcı LediBianku
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply