Introduction

This report contains an analysis of whether a detained university student can have their university registration deleted solely due to their detention, the legal conditions for this process, the possibilities for filing a lawsuit against the process, and relevant judicial decisions. The analysis is based on the results of the literature review presented. The fundamental legal issue focuses on the balance between universities’ disciplinary authority and the right to education guaranteed by the Constitution and international conventions.

Key Findings

  1. Automatic Enrollment Deletion is Not Possible: In the current legal system, merely being arrested is not a sufficient reason for a student’s university registration to be automatically deleted. Deleting registration is generally the result of a disciplinary penalty called “expulsion from a higher education institution,” and this penalty can be imposed following a proper investigation if the act that led to the student’s arrest also constitutes a disciplinary offense.
  2. Past Legislation and Criticisms: In the past, there were regulations concerning the deletion of registrations for students who were detained or convicted, particularly for organized crimes. However, these regulations faced intense criticism in doctrine, arguing that they hindered rehabilitation, which is the purpose of incarceration, categorically violated the right to education, and were unconstitutional.
  3. Judicial Review and Right to Sue: As the university’s student deregistration (disaffiliation) process is an administrative act, it is subject to the review of administrative courts. The student can file an annulment lawsuit against this action in the administrative court. Upon examining judicial decisions, it is observed that cases are reviewed from both procedural aspects (jurisdiction, notification, right to defense) and substantive aspects (severity of the act, proportionality of the punishment, maximum study period).
  4. Constitutional Court and ECtHR Jurisprudence: The Constitutional Court (AYM) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) review interventions in the right to education within the framework of the principles of “proportionality” and “non-impairment of the essence of the right.” Especially the length of time education is interrupted due to a disciplinary penalty can be a decisive factor in violation judgments.

Review

1. Impact of Detention on University Enrollment and Legal Framework

Detention is a criminal procedure measure and does not, by itself, constitute a reason for the student’s enrollment to be cancelled. However, if the act that led to the student’s detention also constitutes a disciplinary offense as defined in the Higher Education Institutions Student Disciplinary Regulation, the university administration may initiate a disciplinary investigation. As a result of this investigation, a penalty of “expulsion from the higher education institution” may be imposed.

In the past, a stricter practice existed regarding this matter. As stated by Mihrinaz Akkan, former regulations directly considered being detained or convicted for certain offenses as a reason for student deregistration:

During the period when the issue of “the deletion of records of those convicted and detained for organized crimes from higher education institutions, including open education faculties” was regulated according to the provisions of Article 54/1-a of the Higher Education Law dated 1981 and Article 9/1-a of the Disciplinary Regulation dated 18/08/2012, these regulations were criticized in doctrine as being “contrary to the purpose of execution… and considered a violation of the right to education…” (Right to Religion and Education of the Convict-854080-Mihrinaz Akkan-2024)

This situation contradicted the fact that the right to education for detainees and convicts is a fundamental right. Indeed, it is emphasized in the literature that the purpose of punishment is rehabilitation, and education cannot be overlooked in this process. (Provision of Public Education and Training Service in Digital Environment within the Context of the Right to Education and Learning-852034-Hasan Tahsin Sadık-2024)

2. Conditions and Limits of the Penalty of Deletion of Registration (Expulsion from a Higher Education Institution)

Expulsion from a higher education institution is the most severe student disciplinary penalty. For this penalty to be imposed, the act attributed to the student must be one of the offenses requiring this penalty in the relevant regulation, and a proper investigation must be conducted.

As an important development, the regulation that prevented those who received this penalty in the past from being admitted to any higher education institution again has been annulled by the Constitutional Court. Egemen Karaca explains this situation as follows:

“In the second sentence of Article 54/g of Higher Education Law No. 2547, there was a provision stating: “Students who are expelled from a higher education institution shall not be admitted to any other higher education institution again.” However, this provision was found to be contrary to the principle of proportionality by the Constitutional Court and was annulled on the grounds that it completely prevented the exercise of the right to education and training. Thus, a student expelled from a higher education institution will only not be readmitted to the higher education institution from which they were expelled, in accordance with Article 3/f of the Disciplinary Regulations for Students of Higher Education Institutions.” (Disciplinary regime in universities-548781-EGEMEN KARACA-2019)

This annulment decision reinforced the principle that the penalty must be proportionate and should not completely abolish the right to education.

3. Filing a Lawsuit Against Registration Cancellation and Analysis of Court Decisions

The university’s registration cancellation process, regardless of its justification, can be subject to an annulment lawsuit in administrative courts. A field study conducted by Hüseyin Bilgin provides concrete examples of which aspects courts examine in such cases. The main grounds for annulment decisions are as follows:

  • Illegality in the Element of Authority: The decision being made by an unauthorized board. For example, “1 annulment decision was given on the grounds that the authority to impose punishment rested with the faculty board of directors, not the university board of directors.” (Field study on annulment and full remedy lawsuit files: Denizli example-393116-HÜSEYİN BİLGİN-2015)
  • Procedural Errors: Situations such as failure to properly notify, and restriction of the right to defense.
  • Substantive Illegalities:”
    • Not Exceeding the Maximum Study Period: A total of 5 annulment decisions were issued “on the grounds that the plaintiffs had not completed the maximum study period of 7 years.”
    • Invalidity of the Excuse of Absenteeism or Failure: One annulment decision was issued “on the grounds that the school administration did not fulfill its obligations and should have ensured the student’s continued attendance at school.”
    • Insufficiency of Reasons Such as Not Paying Tuition Fees: There are decisions stating that reasons such as not paying tuition fees cannot be a direct reason for student deregistration.

These decisions demonstrate that the administration cannot act arbitrarily when implementing a severe procedure such as deregistration, and must strictly adhere to all procedural and substantive rules in the legislation.

4. Constitutional Court and ECHR Perspective

High courts assess interference with the right to education within the context of fundamental rights and freedoms.

  • Decisions of the Constitutional Court:
    • In an application, the Constitutional Court, in the case of a student arrested on the grounds of terrorist organization activity and expelled from school, ruled that there was no violation, stating that the intervention had a legal basis, pursued a legitimate aim (security at the university), and that a 5-year deprivation was “reasonable and proportionate.” However, it should be noted that this decision was taken by a majority vote and included dissenting members. (Manifestly Ill-Founded as an Admissibility Criterion in Individual Applications to the Constitutional Court-845305-Furkan Samet Eser-2024)
    • In contrast, in the application of Fehmiye Baskın, the Constitutional Court ruled that “the applicant, a fourth-year student, being deprived of university education for approximately seven years throughout this entire process, violated her right to education.” (Disciplinary regime in universities-548781-EGEMEN KARACA-2019)
    • Similarly, in the application of Özcan Özsoy, it was ruled that the right to education of a student, who was expelled from school due to a petition and deprived of education for three years, was violated.

These decisions show that the Constitutional Court considers the length of time the student was deprived of education to be a critical element in its proportionality review, as much as the justification for the intervention itself.

  • ECtHR Decisions:
    • The ECtHR also, in the case of Temel and Others/Turkey, “ruled that their grievances could not be remedied due to the lengthy proceedings in domestic law, and that the right to education had been violated.” (Disciplinary regime in universities-548781-EGEMEN KARACA-2019) This decision indicates that not only the punishment itself, but also the total detriment created by the punishment and the legal process conducted against it, can violate the right to education.

Conclusion

  1. The mere detention of a university student is not a direct and sole reason for their enrollment to be cancelled from the school. De-registration is only possible if the act that led to the student’s detention also constitutes a disciplinary offense, and a proper disciplinary investigation is conducted on this matter, resulting in the penalty of “expulsion from the higher education institution.”
  2. While the university administration has broad discretionary power in imposing this penalty, this power is not unlimited. The action must have a legal basis, pursue a legitimate aim such as public order and university discipline, and there must be a balance, in accordance with the principle of “proportionality,” between the sanction applied (deprivation of education) and the aim sought to be achieved.
  3. The student has the right to file an annulment lawsuit in the administrative court against the registration cancellation. Courts review the action in terms of its elements: authority, form, reason, subject matter, and purpose. Reasons such as decisions made by unauthorized boards, the maximum study period not having expired, or irregular notification are frequently encountered grounds for annulment.
  4. The case law of the Constitutional Court and the ECHR indicates that the right to education is a fundamental right and interventions in this right are subject to very strict scrutiny. In particular, an excessively long period during which a student is deprived of education due to prolonged disciplinary investigations and judicial processes can, by itself, be considered a violation of the right to education. Therefore, in the legal review of an expulsion penalty given during a detention period, the proportionality of the penalty and the duration of the loss of rights it caused are of vital importance.