Events
The applicant participated in a press statement organised by a group of students in order to react to the investigation initiated by the university administration against the students protesting against the Ankara Train Station attack.
A disciplinary investigation was initiated by the university administration on the grounds that the applicant used expressions in the press statement in question, which were deemed to damage the honour and dignity of the university rector. As a result of the investigation, the applicant was given a disciplinary penalty of suspension from the higher education institution for one month on the grounds that he had committed acts that damaged the honour and dignity of university staff inside or outside the institution.
The applicant filed a lawsuit at the administrative court for the cancellation of the administrative act. The administrative court decided to reject the request for cancellation of the action on the grounds that there was no violation of the law. The applicant’s appeal request was rejected by the regional administrative court and the court’s decision on the rejection of the case became final.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his right to education was violated as he was punished with a disciplinary penalty of one-month suspension from school on the grounds that he used expressions that damaged the honour and reputation of the rector of the university where he was a student, in a press statement he attended.
Evaluation of the Court
The degree of education is of great importance in terms of the regulations introduced for students’ freedom of expression. In this context, the degree of education received by the individual subjected to disciplinary sanctions is important. As the degree of education increases, the interventions against the student’s freedom of expression should decrease. In the concrete case, the area of interference to the right to education in connection with freedom of expression of the applicant, who is a higher education student, should be narrower than primary and secondary education levels. In this context, universities, which are seen as the cradle of free thought and critical reason, should show more tolerance to university students with different opinions. Even if the views and opinions in question are controversial or unpopular, they should enjoy the strict protection of freedom of expression.
In a press statement read out in the presence of a group including the applicant, it was alleged that the rector had expelled 170 university students since taking office. The courts, on the other hand, did not address the issue of where the line between legitimate criticism and insulting the rector, who was alleged to have resorted to drastic measures such as dismissal of many academics and students from the university.
Firstly, it is clear that the press release subject to the application approaches university policies from a different perspective and uses an oppositional language. However, it should not be forgotten that ensuring social and political pluralism depends on the peaceful and free expression of all kinds of opinions. Interfering with the opinions expressed in the press release subject to the application and penalising those who support such opinions for one reason or another makes it impossible to achieve an environment of free debate and thus to ensure pluralism.
Secondly, it should not be forgotten that the limits of acceptable criticism of public authorities are much wider than those of private individuals. It must always be borne in mind that, in a democratic system, the acts and omissions of public authorities are under strict scrutiny not only by the legislature and the judiciary but also by the public. The press statement in which the applicant took part must be recognised as part of the public scrutiny of the policies of the university administration.
Thirdly, public authorities have the possibility to respond and react to criticism against them through different means. As a matter of fact, the university administration could have refuted the allegations made in the press statement in question, informed the public correctly against the statements it considered to be false, and challenged some of the allegations with evidence. Due to the existence of these possibilities, the rector and the university administration should limit themselves to resorting to disciplinary investigation or criminal investigation and prosecution in the face of verbal attacks that they consider to be unjustified – unless they involve incitement to violence – as in the concrete case.
Fourthly, even if some of the statements in the press release were characterised as harsh and offensive by the university administration, it should be reiterated that 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. The Constitutional Court has confirmed in many of its judgements that ideas that disturb state authorities or a part of the society are among the requirements of pluralism, tolerance and open-mindedness that are essential for a democratic society.
As a matter of fact, even if the statements in the press release subject to the application that the rector is subservient to the government and that he is a trustee rector appointed by the government and not elected by the majority of academics are found to be disturbing and provocative for the rector, it should be accepted that freedom of expression should be interpreted broadly to allow a degree of exaggeration and even provocation.
On the other hand, in their decisions on disciplinary penalties to be imposed on university students, the administration and the courts must also show the possible or actual negative effects of the action subject to intervention on the order of the educational institution. At this point, first of all, it should be taken into consideration that the act subject to punishment took place outside the university campus. Undoubtedly, disciplinary rules may also be applied to students’ statements or other actions outside the school.
However, it is only possible for students to be subjected to sanctions for their actions outside the school, which would constitute an interference with the right to education, if it is shown that the action outside the institution seriously affects the order of the institution. In the concrete case, it is observed that the justifications of the court do not evaluate to what extent the press statement subject to the applicant’s punishment affected, disrupted or threatened to disrupt the order of the university. In other words, the judgements fail to reveal which compelling social need the disciplinary penalty corresponds to. It is not constitutionally possible to punish students with a disciplinary penalty for disrupting the order of the educational institution on the basis of hypothetical evaluations for reasons such as the honour or dignity of public authorities and thus to limit their right to education.
As a result, the applicant was punished with the disciplinary penalty of suspension from school for exercising his freedom of expression and could not benefit from his right to education. It is clear that the courts of first instance did not evaluate the reason for the use of the statements subject to the application, their content, the effect of the statements on the order of the institution, the level of education the applicant was receiving and the medium in which the press statement was made. In the light of the circumstances of the case and when the above-mentioned reasons are considered together, it is not accepted that the disciplinary penalty imposed does not meet a compelling need and is proportionate. In this context, the justifications put forward 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 here.