The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has found in favour of the Applicant in Enver Şahin v Turkey, holding the Turkish Government in violation of articles 14 and 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in relation to the prohibition on discrimination and the right to an education.
The Applicant, a Turkish national was seriously injured in an accident, leaving his lower body paralysed. After recovering sufficiently from his injuries, he wished to return to university. The Applicant requested that the faculty adapt the university premise’s to accommodate his disability so that he could resume his education. The university refused citing budgetary constraints and stating that the adjustments sought would not be available in the short term. The university then offered to hire someone to assist the applicant on the premises. However the Applicant refused on the basis that it would interfere with his privacy. The Applicant brought the case before national administrative courts but was unsuccessful.
The Applicant appealed that decision to the ECtHR relying on Article 2, the right to an education, and article 14, the prohibition of discrimination, of the ECHR. The Applicant complained that he had to cease his studies due to the lack of facilities provided by the University. The Applicant also alleges that being assisted by another person as suggested by the university would deprive him of his privacy under Article 8 (right to privacy) of the ECHR.
The Court ruled in favour of the Applicant. Firstly the ECtHR examined the stance taken by the university authorities, finding it to be unreasonable. The ECtHR stated that it was unable to accept that the issue of the Applicants access to the buildings could be left unresolved pending the availability of the funding to complete the adjustment work. The ECtHR also commented on the university’s offer of supplying an assistant to help the Applicant. It found that such an accompanying person would be contrary to Article 8, and that persons with a disability must be given the opportunity to live independently. The alternative suggested by the university of an assisting person disregarded the applicants need to live an autonomous and independent life.
The ECtHR then assessed the findings of the national Administrative Court. It found in particular that the Government had not demonstrated that the national authorities, and in particular the university and judicial authorities reacted with the requisite diligence in order to ensure that the Applicant could continue to enjoy his right to education on an equal footing with other students. Firstly, a proposal by the rector’s office to provide a person to assist him had not been made following an assessment of the Applicant’s actual needs and an honest appraisal of the potential impact on his safety, dignity and independence. Secondly it found that it had failed to strike a fair balance between the needs of the Applicant and the interests of society as a whole. Furthermore, they had omitted to look for possible solutions that would have enabled the Applicant to resume his studies under conditions as close as possible to those provided to students with no disability, without imposing an undue or disproportionate burden on the administration. The national court acknowledged vaguely that there were technical guidelines aimed at assisting disabled persons, but exempted the university on the basis that the building in question had been constructed prior to the entry into force of the guidelines. The national court further omitted to seek potential other solutions that would have allowed the applicant to continue his education on equal footing with other students.
The ECtHR found that the Turkish government had not demonstrated that the university and national courts had acted with the requisite diligence to ensure that the Applicant could enjoy his right to an education without discrimination due to his disability. Thus it found Turkey to be in violation of articles 2 and 14 of the Convention.
To read the full judgement click here.