A Very Important Precedent Decision on the Universal Right to Education: A Legal Assessment of the Final Decision of the 4th Administrative Court of the Ankara Regional Administrative Court dated 19 June 2025

Court: Ankara Regional Administrative Court 4th Administrative Court

Case No.: 2025/1374 Decision No.: 2025/832 Date of Decision: 19 June 2025

Summary

This article is a legal assessment of the decision of the Ankara Regional Administrative Court, 4th Administrative Court's decision numbered E. 2025/1374, K. 2025/832, examines the status of applications for the title of associate professor after the state of emergency and the effects of the Constitutional Court's decision numbered E. 2018/80 – K. 2022/136 on administrative law. The decision was analysed in light of the amendments made to Article 24 of Law No. 2547 by Law No. 7100, the annulment of Article 4 of Law No. 7085, the presumption of innocence, the right to education, and the limits of the administrative authority's discretion. Additionally, the precedential nature of the decision was discussed in conjunction with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of State.

1 Introduction

The decrees issued after 15 July 2016 had a profound impact on public servants and academics. The plaintiff, who was dismissed by Decree No. 672, appealed to the administrative court after his application for associate professorship in April 2016 was cancelled pursuant to Article 4 of Law No. 7085.

Upon the dismissal of the case by the court of first instance, the Ankara BİM 4th İDD accepted the appeal and cancelled the ÜAK decision and the first instance decision.

2 Summary of the Case and Reasons for the Decision

2.1 Suspension of the Associate Professorship Process

• The plaintiff applied for associate professorship in April 2016 and was deemed successful in the work review stage.
• Law No. 7100 cancelled the associate professorship interview stage. The plaintiff legally became an associate professor.
• The application was suspended based on Article 4 of Law No. 7085.

2.2 Constitutional Court’s Decision on Repeal

• AYM E. 2018/80 – K. 2022/136 (RG 20.07.2023) decision repealed the aforementioned article.

2.3 Main Grounds for the BİM Decision

1. Binding Nature of the Constitutional Court's Ruling — Pursuant to Articles 153/5 and 152/3 of the Constitution, courts are required to apply annulment decisions together with their reasoning.
2. Limits of the Principle of Non-Retroactivity — An annulment decision applies to proceedings that have not yet become final or are still pending.
3. Right to Education and Academic Freedom — Article 42 of the Constitution and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (see Telek and Others v. Turkey, Application No. 66763/17, 2021).
4. Presumption of Innocence and Non-Prosecution — The absence of a conviction against the plaintiff was assessed within the framework of Article 38/4 of the Constitution.

3 Applicable Legislation and National High Court Decisions

Source

Basic Provision

Impact on the Decision

Law No. 2547, Article 24 (Amended: Law No. 7100, Article 5)

Abolition of oral examinations as of 06.03.2018

Protection of acquired rights

Law No. 7085, Article 4

Suspension/cancellation of associate professorship procedures during the state of emergency

Annulled by the Constitutional Court, Case No. 2022/136

Law No. 2577, Article 45

Appeal procedure

BİM decision is final

Constitutional Court, Case No. 2011/60, Decision No. 2011/147

Binding nature of reasoned decisions

BİM emphasised the unity of reasoning and ruling

Council of State 8th Chamber E. 2021/5288, K. 2023/2857

Cancellation of minimum requirements for associate professorship

Scientific competence upheld

Council of State 10th Chamber E. 2024/6575, K. 2025/1374

Non-retroactivity – legal certainty

Deviation from the principle criticised

4 International Law Dimension

4.1 ECHR Decisions

• Baka/Hungary (B. 20223/10, 2016) — Protection of judicial and academic freedom.
• Telek and Others v. Turkey (B. 66763/17, 2021) — Violation of the right to education by post-state of emergency restrictions on academic activities.
• Çelik and İmret v. Turkey (B. 39182/17, 2022) — Presumption of innocence in post-state of emergency dismissals.

4.2 Right to Education

Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR also covers the results of education (title, diploma). The BİM decision has incorporated this approach into domestic law.

5 Precedential Value of the Decision

1. Principle of Acquired Rights — The right of candidates who have successfully completed their studies cannot be abolished by subsequent regulations.
2. Limits on the Discretionary Power of the Administration — The decision of the Higher Education Council not to proceed with the process violated the principle of proportionality.
3. Obligation to Comply with the Constitutional Court Decision — If courts fail to comply with the principle of consistency between the reasoning and the ruling, they violate Article 153(5) of the Constitution.

6 Pre-Decision Situation Assessment

A- Complaint and Claims: The complaint was comprehensive and well-researched, clearly linking the specific case to the Constitutional Court decision (E.2018/80, K.2022/136). The difference in the effective dates of Laws No. 7100 and No. 7084 was correctly identified, The contradictions in the actions of the Higher Education Council (ÜAK) have been demonstrated with documents (DBS, correspondence, announcements), and the principles of legal certainty, acquired rights, and non-retroactivity have been effectively articulated.

The Ankara 25th Administrative Court, in its decision dated 12 February 2025, Case No. E:2024/1595, K:2025/202, found that the ÜAK's decision dated 11 June 2024 regarding the plaintiff's request for an associate professorship certificate was in accordance with the law. However, the aforementioned decision was rendered without considering the clear contradiction of the subject matter of the case with Law No. 7100 and the Constitutional Court's decision dated 2018/80, K.2022/136, and by summarising the grounds of previous and different cases, and making evaluations unrelated to the specific case. The subject matter of the case is that the plaintiff essentially obtained the right to associate professorship in 2015 after successfully completing the work review and the abolition of the oral stage in accordance with Law No. 7100, which entered into force in 2018, resulted in the acquisition of an acquired right. In this context, the plaintiff requests:

1. The annulment of the decision of the Ankara 25th Administrative Court,
2. The annulment of the previous decisions of the Higher Education Council dated 11 June 2024,
3. The decision to grant the plaintiff the title of associate professor as of 6 March 2018.
4. The plaintiff has requested that the costs be recovered from the defendant administration.

B- Main Legal Grounds: There are three main legal grounds in this case:

1. Law No. 7100 (06.03.2018) abolishing the interview stage for associate professorship;
2. Constitutional Court Decision E.2018/80–K.2022/136, which annulled Article 4/1 of Decree-Law No. 7084 and prevented the retroactive application of this provision in accordance with the principle of non-retroactivity;
3. In the specific case, considering that the work review was successfully completed in 2015, and therefore your acquired right had already arisen by the time the interview was abolished (2018), the court should have ruled in accordance with the principles of legal certainty, predictability, and acquired rights.

C- Criticisms of the First Instance Court Decision:

1. The summary of the case has been incorrectly described, and old legal assessments have been used as if they were the subject of the new case.
2. The ÜAK's letter dated 27 December 2024 and the DBS system explanations have not been taken into account.
3. The argument that ‘cancellation decisions do not have retroactive effect’ has become invalid in the present case due to the plaintiff's acquired right from 2015.
4. The emphasis that the title of associate professor constitutes an acquired right based on scientific competence has been disregarded.

D- The Universality of the Right to Education and Its Constitutional Foundations:

1. A fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution:

• Constitution, Article 42:

‘No one may be deprived of the right to education and learning.’

The Constitutional Court's decisions state that this right encompasses not only access to education but also the protection of rights arising from education (e.g., the acquisition of titles, diplomas, and academic titles).

1. A right protected under international law:

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26,
• European Convention on Human Rights, Protocol No. 2, Article 2

The right to education requires not only the recognition of the process but also the recognition of the rights that must be obtained at the end of the process. “The title of associate professor is an academic outcome; the right to education is constitutionally guaranteed not only for the process but also for the delivery of the right that gives rise to the outcome.”

Legal effect of dismissal and non-prosecution decision by E-KHK:

1. Presumption of innocence in criminal law

Constitution, Article 38/4: ‘No one shall be deemed guilty until proven guilty by a final court decision.’

No final conviction has been issued against the plaintiff; only an administrative decision has been made by KHK.

However, the criminal investigation was dismissed. This establishes that the plaintiff is not criminally liable.

1. The legal basis for disciplinary and administrative proceedings collapses

The fundamental principle of criminal law also applies to administrative law.

The dismissal decision removes the grounds relied upon by the administration.

In this case, the prevention of an academic title becomes clearly contrary to the law.

‘Since the judicial process against the plaintiff resulted in a decision not to prosecute, restricting an acquired academic right such as associate professorship with a criminal suspicion that no longer exists is a clear violation of the presumption of innocence and the principle of the rule of law.’

F- Violation of the Principle of Acquired Rights and Non-Retroactivity:

1. Elements of acquired rights:

• Possession of sufficient works and publications,
• Success in the scientific jury evaluation,
• The date of success being prior to Law No. 7100, but the oral exam being abolished in 2018,
• The entry into force of Law No. 7084, which prevents the granting of the title, after Law No. 7100.

1. Effect of the Constitutional Court's annulment decision

• The relevant provision of Law No. 7084 has been annulled (AYM E.2018/80, K.2022/136).
• Constitutional Court decisions generally do not have retroactive effect, but:
• If the annulled regulation violates a right acquired in the past, the annulment decision has the function of removing the violation.
• The plaintiff had already successfully passed the work review in 2015, and the acquired right had been established.

‘The repealed regulation (7084 SK 4/1) cannot render ineffective an academic achievement that arose in 2015. The Constitutional Court's decision is therefore not merely an abstract norm review but a directly effective decision aimed at remedying a violation of a concrete right.’

G- The Administration's Own Contradictory Statements-Violation of the Rule of Good Faith:

In its letter dated 27 December 2024, the Higher Education Council (ÜAK) clearly stated that ‘if you apply, your application will be evaluated’, thereby explicitly opening the way for the right to associate professorship, but subsequently responded with ‘no action can be taken’, thereby undermining legal certainty. Moreover, this breach of the good faith principle appears to have evolved from a mere error into an institutional culture encompassing the entire institution. (1)

The establishment of different procedures on the same matter at different times violates legal predictability and the principle of equality. "The administration's statement in one letter that the right to apply exists and in another letter that the procedure cannot be carried out is contrary to the principle of the rule of law and the principle of administrative stability.

H- Brief Reasoning:

1. Universality of the Right to Education and Access to Scientific Titles

Constitutional Basis:

• Constitution Art. 42: ‘No one may be deprived of the right to education and learning.’
• AYM's 2022/136 annulment decision: The title of associate professor cannot be linked solely to entry into public service; scientific competence is a right that can also be exercised in the private sector.

The right to education is not limited to student status but is a fundamental right applicable at every stage of an academic career. Denying access to the title of associate professor also constitutes a violation of scientific progress and freedom of expression. In its reasoned decision, the Constitutional Court stated that these rights cannot be restricted without being based on a necessary public need in a democratic society.

2. Legal Effect of the Decree-Law and the Decision Not to Prosecute

• The file of the plaintiff dismissed by Decree-Law No. 672 contains no evidence that he was convicted by any court decision or even that a decision not to prosecute was issued against him.

As stated in the AYM decision, the title of associate professor does not directly provide public office; therefore, the absence of conditions relating to public office cannot constitute an obstacle to access to the title.

The deprivation of rights of an individual against whom a decision not to prosecute has been issued, without any concrete judicial decision establishing their membership in a terrorist organisation, is inconsistent with the presumption of innocence (Constitution, Article 38/4). As stated in the Constitutional Court's decision, the deprivation of scientific titles without a criminal conviction is contrary to the principles of proportionality and legal certainty.

3. Binding Nature of AYM Decisions Together with Their Rationale

• Constitution Art. 153/final: AYM decisions are binding on the legislative, executive, judicial, and administrative authorities.
• AYM case law: The rationale of the decision is also binding (e.g., E.1988/11, K.1988/11).

The court is required to comply not only with the dispositive part of the decision but also with its reasoning. The Constitutional Court has explicitly stated that the title of associate professor is an indicator of scientific competence and that dismissal from public office does not absolutely preclude access to this title. Therefore, the annulment of Article 7085 does not only have prospective effect; it also constitutes a reason that must be applied to applications that are still pending or have been annulled. Continuing proceedings contrary to the relevant Constitutional Court decision after its publication in the Official Gazette is clearly contrary to Article 152/3 of the Constitution.

The scientific title must be considered a universal right and not be linked solely to public office. The continuation of the associate professorship application from where it left off is a requirement of respect for both the plaintiff's academic work and his constitutional rights. Since Law No. 7100 abolished the interview stage, the plaintiff has become an associate professor under that law. The dismissal decision in favour of the plaintiff clearly invalidates the basis of the administrative decision. Since AYM decisions are binding on both natural and legal persons in both their material and interpretative aspects, administrative decisions contrary to this reasoning are invalid.

8 Ankara Regional Administrative Court 4th Administrative Court 19 June 2025 Decision No. E:2025/1374 K: 2025/832 Importance of the Decision:

Ankara Regional Administrative Court 4th Administrative Litigation Chamber's decision dated 19 June 2025 (cancelling the decision rejecting the application for associate professorship and accepting the appeal) constitutes an important precedent in terms of its reasoning and consequences. Below is a detailed analysis of this decision in the context of constitutional principles, administrative case law, and individual rights:

1. Summary of the Decision and Legal Basis

Subject: The plaintiff's application for associate professorship in April 2016 was cancelled on the grounds of Article 4 of Law No. 7085. However, since this provision was annulled by the Constitutional Court, the application should have been continued from where it left off; yet, the Inter-University Council (ÜAK) (which is obligated to issue the associate professorship certificate) rejected this. The first-instance court also found the rejection to be in accordance with the law.

Historical Decision of the Court of Appeal:

The Ankara Regional Administrative Court, accepting the decision of the Constitutional Court as binding along with its reasoning:

• Reversed the decision of the first-instance court,
• Issued a decision annulling the action of the ÜAK,
• Ruled that the associate professorship process should continue from where it left off and that the spring of 2018 should be taken as the basis for the issuance of the associate professorship certificate to the plaintiff (2).

2. The Legal and Constitutional Value of the Decision

The Ankara Regional Administrative Court, 4th Administrative Court, has issued a historic precedent-setting decision in terms of the legal supervision of administrative acts, constitutional law, and the protection of individual rights and freedoms.

Binding Nature of Constitutional Court Decisions

• The decision directly applied Constitutional Law Article 153/final: “Constitutional Court decisions are binding on the legislative, executive, judicial and administrative authorities.”
• Furthermore, it clearly stated that not only the annulment provision but also “the reasoning of the Constitutional Court decision must be complied with.”
• This approach is fully consistent with the principle of ‘binding force of reasoning’ established in the Constitutional Court's decision of 24 May 1988, E:1988/11, K:1988/11.

Limitation of the Principle of Non-Retroactivity

• The Court stated that, despite the principle of ‘annulment decisions do not have retroactive effect’ set forth in Article 153 of the Constitution, annulment decisions must be taken into account in ongoing administrative disputes.
• Reference was also made to Article 152/3 of the Constitution: ‘If a decision of annulment is rendered as a result of an appeal, the court must comply with it until the decision on the merits becomes final.’

On these grounds, the court of appeal based its decision on the principles of the rule of law and the supremacy of the constitution.

3. Importance of the Decision in Terms of Individual Rights

Right to Academic Career and Right to Education

• The court emphasised that the title of associate professor is not directly linked to a public office, but rather an indicator of scientific competence.
• In line with the Constitutional Court's decision numbered 2022/136, it accepted that this title is valid not only for public service but also in numerous fields such as private universities, foreign institutions, and academic publications.

Presumption of Innocence and Non-Prosecution

• The decision indirectly referred to the fact that there was no conviction against the plaintiff and that the case had been dismissed, and made an assessment in accordance with the principle that the defendant benefits from the presumption of innocence.
• In this respect, it also reflects the established case law that punitive administrative acts cannot be taken without a concrete judicial decision (see Council of State decisions; ECHR - Baka v. Hungary, Çelik and İmret v. Turkey).

4. Emphasis on Procedural and Judicial Principles

Requirement for a Reasoned Decision

• The decision, citing Article 141/3 of the Constitution, reminded that an administrative act without a reason cannot be in accordance with the law.
• It was emphasised that the decision of the Higher Education Council was without reason and that it did not re-evaluate the decision after the Constitutional Court's decision, and the decision was annulled based on the principles of proportionality and reasonableness.

Litigation Costs

• The imposition of total litigation costs of 3,438.30 TL on the administration is significant in terms of establishing the financial responsibility for unjust administrative acts.
• Additionally, this decision serves as a symbolic example demonstrating that public authorities may face material consequences for disregarding Constitutional Court rulings.

5. Precedent Nature of the Decision

This decision

is a ‘precedent decision’ for all individuals whose associate professorship applications were cancelled on the grounds of Article 4 of Law No. 7085.It has confirmed that ‘AYM decisions’ should be applied not only prospectively but also in ongoing proceedings."

• In the application for associate professorship, ‘it has paved the way for individuals who have received a decision of non-prosecution to continue their scientific careers.’

This decision provides strong evidence for the restoration of the weakening belief that the Republic of Turkey is a democratic state governed by the rule of law and rekindles hopes that the rule of law will prevail, albeit belatedly.

Without a doubt, this decision has established a very strong precedent in terms of the principle of the rule of law, scientific freedom, and constitutional binding force. The plaintiff was granted the right to continue his application for associate professorship from where it left off and to have his title reinstated with retroactive effect.

It has been demonstrated that the judiciary effectively monitors the implementation of Constitutional Court decisions.

Conclusion

The decision of the Constitutional Court, BİM E. 2025/1374, K. 2025/832, constitutes one of the strongest judicial precedents regarding the suspension of associate professorship processes during the state of emergency.

The decision links the right to education to academic titles and emphasises that the Constitutional Court's annulment decisions are binding in terms of the unity of their reasoning and ruling. In this respect, it sets a precedent for all annulment/suspension proceedings based on Article 4 of Law No. 7085.

Footnotes

(1) The plaintiff's recollection also demonstrates the reflection of the violation of the good faith principle in institutional culture: "On 16 July 2025, I went to the Inter-University Council Presidency (ÜAK). I presented a court decision. I wanted to finish a novel I had left unfinished. I complained that my right to education was being denied in a world where even murderers have the right to education. The official spoke briefly but clearly”:

“Here (Inter-University Council Presidency), no one can help a KHK-affiliated individual.” “It is not possible for a KHK-affiliated individual to become an associate professor here.” “However, it is possible if there is a court decision.” “And even then, only with a council decision…”

(2) The decision also states: “…it is also noted that the plaintiff’s application for associate professorship in the April 2016 period was successful in the work review stage. In this case; Since Article 4 of Law No. 7085 has been annulled by the Constitutional Court decision whose content is quoted above, there is no obstacle to the continuation of the plaintiff's associate professorship process for the April 2016 period; therefore, based on the plaintiff's aforementioned application, it is decided that the procedures related to the associate professorship process shall continue from where they left off, it is noted that the plaintiff's application for associate professorship submitted in the April 2016 period was successful in the work review stage; the oral examination stage was abolished as of 06/03/2018, and the first administrative board meeting regarding the evaluation of associate professorship applications was held on 19/04/20218. the aforementioned application was rejected on the grounds that the decisions of the Constitutional Court do not have retroactive effect, and the administrative court decision rejecting the application was found to be in accordance with the law.For the reasons explained above, it was decided to accept the appeal filed by the plaintiff, to overturn the court decision subject to the appeal, to annul the decision in question, and to order the defendant to pay the plaintiff a total of 3,438.30 TL in court costs for the court and appeal proceedings, as detailed below.

References

T.C. Constitutional Court, E. 2011/60, K. 2011/147, 27 October 2011.

1. Ankara Regional Administrative Court, 4th Administrative Court, Case No. 2025/1374, Decision No. 2025/832, 19 June 2025.
2. Council of State, 8th Chamber, Case No. 2021/5288, Decision No. 2023/2857, 2 February 2023.
3. Council of State, 10th Chamber, Case No. 2024/6575, Decision No. 2025/1374, 5 March 2025.
4. European Court of Human Rights, Baka v. Hungary, Application No. 20223/10, 23 June 2016.
5. European Court of Human Rights, Telek and Others v. Turkey, Application No. 66763/17, 21 September 2021.
6. European Court of Human Rights, Çelik and İmret v. Turkey, Application No. 39182/17, 26 April 2022.