Although there are decisions of the Council of Higher Education and the Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation regarding the legal disputes regarding the course fees charged by foundation universities in our country, there are many lawsuits that are still pending.
With the decision of the Higher Education Council of the Republic of Turkey dated 15.09.2008, it has been stated that it is not appropriate to charge the unsuccessful course and lower class course fees from the students again, except for the fees charged during the academic year.
ARTICLE 10 OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION LAW
Article 10 of the Higher Education Law states that “Higher education institutions to be established by foundations shall submit their studies to the Council of Higher Education at the end of each academic year, like state higher education institutions, and these institutions are subject to the supervision and control of the Council of Higher Education in financial, administrative and economic matters.” With this clear provision, it will be contrary to this provision with a second and unfair collection.
In the general assembly of the Presidency of the Council of Higher Education dated 15.09.2008, “According to the additional article 10 of the Higher Education Law No. 2547, it has been decided that students studying in foundation higher education institutions, which are subject to the supervision and supervision of the board in financial, administrative and economic matters, are charged a fee for the term and academic year in which they are enrolled, and that it is not appropriate to charge a fee for the lower class courses that have already been taken/paid by the students who have passed to the next grade and paid the fee for the previous academic year.”
.
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the plaintiff received education at the foundation university in the autumn semester and although the tuition fee was paid, the plaintiff was charged for the second time due to the failed courses and requested the collection of the fee from the defendant. It is understood that the plaintiff paid more than the total tuition fee to the defendant university in the autumn semester, and in this context, the defendant university unjustly collected the amount from the plaintiff. The amount unjustly collected from the plaintiff constitutes unjust enrichment for the defendant university and the unjustly enriched amount must be returned to the plaintiff.”
Considering all these issues, it is possible to ensure the return of the unjustly received fees by applying to the legal remedy. These cases will be heard by the consumer courts. According to Article 1 of the Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection
“The purpose of this Law is to take measures to protect the health, safety and economic interests of consumers in accordance with the public interest, to compensate their losses, to protect them from environmental hazards, to enlighten and raise awareness of consumers, to encourage self-protective initiatives of consumers and to regulate the issues related to encouraging voluntary organisations in the formulation of policies on these issues.”
ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 2 OF THE SAME LAW TITLED SCOPE,
“This Law covers all kinds of consumer transactions and consumer orientated practices.”
is stipulated.
It is clear that students studying at foundation universities are obliged to pay tuition fees to the school. Since the students pay a fee in return for receiving educational services from the school, a producer-consumer relationship is established between the university and the student. Since the relationship between the foundation universities and the students enrolled in the school falls within the scope of the application area of the provision of Article 73 of the Consumer Law, which states that “Consumer courts are in charge of cases related to disputes that may arise from consumer transactions and consumer-oriented practices”, the case will be heard in the consumer court.
In the calculation of the statute of limitations for this lawsuit to be filed in the consumer court, Article 82 of the 6098 Code of Obligations states that “The right to claim arising from unjust enrichment shall expire two years from the date the right holder learns that he has the right to claim back, and in any case ten years from the date of enrichment.” The provision shall be taken as basis.
Legal Notice: The information shared on this website is for informational purposes only. Depending on the relevant regulations of the T.C. Bar Association, it does not aim to advertise, offer, legal opinion in any way. Access to this information does not in any way create an attorney-client relationship. Visiting this website implies acceptance of the above terms and conditions.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.