Events
Litigation Process Subject to the Application
The applicant, who was working as an associate professor at a university at the time of the events, obtained the foreign language score required for admission to doctoral programmes in the Interuniversity Board Foreign Language Examination (ÜDS 2005 autumn term) in 2005. Having met the other requirements, the applicant was accepted to a doctoral programme and started working as a lecturer at Adıyaman University in 2014; in the same year, he transferred to a different university in another province. The Rectorate of Adıyaman University notified the Attorney General’s Office that the foreign language exams of a group of academics, including the applicant, were suspicious. As a result of the examinations carried out, it was concluded that persons with an unusual increase in scores should be invited to equivalent examinations. Upon the Board of Directors of the Centre for Measurement, Selection and Placement (ÖSYM) calling him for the equivalent exam, the applicant filed a lawsuit requesting a stay of execution; the administrative court rejected this request. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was accepted by the regional administrative court and a stay of execution was granted. Upon the administrative court’s rejection of the cancellation case, the applicant appealed the decision. The Council of State rejected the appeal on the grounds that the decision was in accordance with the procedure and law.
Developments After the Application
Upon the decision of the Council of State, the applicant was invited to take the equivalent exam again (2020 Electronic Foreign Language Examination), but did not take the exam, stating that he was given a medical leave on the exam date. ÖSYM cancelled the applicant’s 2005 ÜDS result, and with the decision of the University Administrative Board, the applicant’s doctoral diploma was cancelled and the applicant was dismissed from the university. The applicant’s lawsuit against ÖSYM’s cancellation of the ÜDS result was accepted by the administrative court and the Council of State upheld this decision. In the annulment lawsuit filed by the applicant against the cancellation of his doctoral diploma and his dismissal from the university, the administrative court ruled for a stay of execution and the cancellation of the transaction. The case is at the appeal stage.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his right to education was violated as his score in the foreign language exam was found suspicious and he was called for an equivalent exam.
The Court’s Assessment
The first issue to be evaluated is whether the applicant is in a position to know the reason for the examination. In the concrete case, it is understood that the applicant was not in a position to know the reason for the examination. Although it is clear that the process against the applicant started with the notification of the institution where the applicant previously worked, it has been observed that the content and seriousness of the notification and whether it caused a serious doubt on the applicant’s exam result were not evaluated both in the examination made by the administration and in the evaluation made by the court. In addition, it was not discussed whether the allegation that the applicant had obtained dubious results in relation to an examination, which was conducted within the framework of various security measures, whose validity has been accepted by all public authorities for many years, and which has provided individuals with important rights or benefits in terms of obtaining academic qualifications, led to a serious doubt.
Another issue to be taken into account is the time elapsed since the applicant’s exam. The applicant took the exam in question more than 12 years ago, the result certificate for the exam in question was accepted by the public authorities during this period and the applicant started his PhD, which is an academic degree. Law No. 6114 on Measurement, Selection and Placement Centre Services stipulates that a simple and abstract suspicion is not sufficient to meet the criterion of unusual findings, but a concrete finding that the applicant has committed irregularities in the examination, has been a party to an irregularity or has condoned an irregularity from the results of which he has benefited must be demonstrated.
The applicant explained the difference in scores between his last two examinations by the time elapsed between the examinations and the fact that he had improved his language skills through the foreign language courses he had taken during this period. However, it has been observed that the report does not take into account anything other than the average of the exams attended by the applicant and the applicant’s success graph in the last two exams. Considering that the applicant has not been explicitly accused of irregularities in the exam and that it is not possible to consider the applicant’s explanations regarding the relevant increase as a completely meaningless or unprecedented situation, it has been evaluated that the criterion of finding unusual findings stipulated in Law No. 6114 for the invitation to the equivalent exam – especially considering the time elapsed since the exam – has not been met.
In the justification provided by both the administration and the court, it is understood that no other determination other than the average of the exams taken by the applicant and the score difference between the last two exams was included in the reasoning for the applicant to be called to the equivalent exam, and it was not discussed whether the relevant determination was sufficient to meet the extraordinary finding criterion stipulated in Law No. 6114. In line with these explanations, it has been concluded that the interference to the applicant’s right to education by calling the applicant to the equivalent exam cannot be demonstrated by the administration and the judicial authorities that it corresponds to a compelling social need.
The Constitutional Court decided that the right to education was violated for the reasons explained.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking