Events
The applicant graduated from the law faculty of a foreign university whose national equivalence had been granted by the Higher Education Council (YÖK). Subsequently, YÖK refused to grant equivalence to the applicant’s bachelor’s degree, stating that the period spent in the country was insufficient for legal education. T he applicant then filed a lawsuit with the Administrative Court (the Court). The Court dismissed the case on the grounds that the applicant’s period of residence in the country was “seriously insufficient” for law faculty education, which requires compulsory attendance and provides formal education. The applicant’s appeal was rejected by the Regional Administrative Court.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his right to education had been violated due to the rejection of his request for equivalence of his bachelor’s degree from a foreign university recognized by the Council of Higher Education (YÖK).
The Court’s Assessment
Although the applicant stated that he chose the university in question because it did not have compulsory attendance and because many law faculties in our country do not have compulsory attendance by senate decision, it is clear that the type of education for which the applicant requested equivalence was formal education. The “Regulation on Equivalence of Foreign Higher Education Diplomas” (Regulation) separately regulates the procedures and principles relating to formal education and distance learning, and as a rule, students in formal education are required to physically attend classes and practical training during their education and training periods.
In this context, the fact that the applicant’s university does not have an attendance requirement, or that many law schools in our country do not have an attendance requirement, does not grant the applicant the right to be exempt from the attendance requirement for formal education in the diploma equivalence procedures they have requested.
The applicant stated that the criterion regarding the attendance requirement taken into account by YÖK in equivalence procedures is unpredictable and presented sample court decisions on this matter. Indeed, upon examination of the aforementioned decisions, it is understood that YÖK takes into account the period spent by students abroad when issuing equivalence decisions and that the courts, contrary to the applicant’s claim, also take into account the period spent by the plaintiffs abroad and examine the administrative procedures in question from this perspective.
There is no provision in the legislation regarding the determination of the number of days deemed sufficient in terms of the period of stay abroad. However, it should be noted that the state has broad discretion in this matter. YÖK stated that the applicant stayed in the country where he studied abroad for sixty-nine days and that this period was not sufficient to be considered as having studied at a law faculty.
The program the applicant attended was a formal education program, and the Regulation to which it was subject stipulated that the originals or certified copies of passports used during higher education could be requested.
When this matter is considered in conjunction with the discretion of the administration, the absence of a provision in the Regulation stipulating that the applicant’s period of stay abroad shall be subject to additional assessment does not create a predictability issue in terms of the relevant regulation.
The fact that courts have rendered different decisions in different cases, when considered in conjunction with other factors, will not grant the applicant who has failed to fulfill their legal obligations the right to obtain diploma equivalence. It has been concluded that the decision to reject the applicant’s request for diploma equivalence is proportionate. The reasoning of the court of first instance is appropriate and sufficient in terms of the interference with the applicant’s right to education.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the right to education had not been violated for the reasons stated.