Events
The applicant, who was a university student at the time of the events, was given a disciplinary penalty of one-month suspension from the higher education institution due to his words and behaviour towards the rector of the university. The applicant filed a lawsuit at the administrative court for the cancellation of this administrative act, and the court dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the words used by the applicant were of a nature to damage the honour and reputation of the rector of the university and that there was no violation of law in the act subject to the lawsuit. The applicant’s appeal was also rejected by the regional administrative court.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his right to education was violated by the imposition of a disciplinary suspension due to his words and behaviour towards the rector of the university where he was a student.
The Court’s Assessment
In the concrete case, the applicant claimed that he exercised his right to democratic criticism against the rector, stating that he was responsible for the dismissal of many academics from the university, and that he did not utter any insulting words during his peaceful protest. The applicant stated that since the rector did not visit the areas where the students spent their time at the university and did not meet with the students, he took the model he had made with his friends around the faculty among the students and that he ended his protest when the security guards took the model away. During the proceedings, the courts never addressed the issue of where the boundary between the right to legitimate criticism and defamation lies.
The Constitutional Court has adopted some principles to be taken into account when criticising public authorities or public policies. Firstly, in a democratic society based on the rule of law, opinions that oppose the established order, policies and practices or criticise the actions of organs exercising public power or find them unacceptable should be freely expressed, even if some of the opinions and expressions expressed are deemed unacceptable by organs exercising public power. Secondly, it should be borne in mind that the limits of acceptable criticism of public authorities – since they exercise public power – are much wider than those of private individuals. Thirdly, public authorities have the opportunity to respond and react to criticism against them through different means. Fourthly, even if the statements used by the applicant were characterised as harsh and offensive by the university administration, freedom of expression applies not only to information and ideas that are accepted by society or considered harmless or irrelevant, but also to information and ideas that are offensive, shocking or worrying.
In the present case, the applicant criticised from a certain point of view the dismissal and disciplinary punishment of some academics from the university. The statements in question were directed towards problems related to the public interest. On the other hand, in the words and behaviour subject to the application, a sarcastic language was used against the rector and a satirical act was committed. Even if it is claimed to be disturbing at first glance, it cannot be said that the statements subject to the application are unfoundedly injurious to others, offensive and inappropriate. However, the court of first instance concluded that the statements used were of a nature to damage the honour and dignity of individuals; however, it did not discuss which statements were of a nature to damage the rector’s honour and dignity and for which reasons the applicant could not benefit from the protection of freedom of expression. However, the statement subject to the application criticised the rector’s actions in a sarcastic manner on the basis of certain facts which were not claimed to be false by the administration.
In the decisions of the administration and courts regarding the disciplinary penalties to be imposed on university students, the possible or actual negative effects of the action subject to intervention on the order of the educational institution must be shown. In the concrete case, in the court decisions, it could not be demonstrated which compelling social need the disciplinary punishment corresponded to. As a result, the applicant was penalised with a disciplinary penalty of suspension from school for exercising his freedom of expression and could not benefit from his right to education. The justifications provided by the courts were not deemed relevant and sufficient for the interference with the applicant’s right to education.
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