ACADEMIC FEES, PAYMENTS AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT

An applicant turning to our Office believed that the regulation excluded every person holding a degree from further state-funded training, regardless of whether they obtained their tertiary qualification through state-funded or cost-payment schemes, which would violate the prohibition of negative discrimination. We informed the applicant that, pursuant to legislation in force, only the first undergraduate training is funded by the state and that no funded undergraduate training is provided even for those who have obtained a tertiary degree within the framework of cost-payment courses. It is our position that this regulation does not infringe the constitutional principle of the prohibition of discrimination, as explained by the Constitutional Court on several occasions: "The interpretation of the prohibition of discrimination identified in Paragraph (1) of Article 70/A of the Constitution may also establish that the prohibition of discrimination does not mean that every discrimination, even the one ultimately aimed at great social equality, is prohibited. The prohibition of discrimination means that the law must treat everybody as equal (as persons of equal dignity) - that is, that the fundamental right of human dignity may not be impaired; the criteria of granting eligibilities and benefits must be determined with equal respect and care, and consideration given to individual aspects. [.] the right to the equal distribution of benefits and chances for all (even quantitatively) may also be derived from the right to equal personal dignity. If, however, a certain social goal, that does not conflict with the Constitution, or a constitutional right, may only be enforced by not implementing equality in its narrow sense, then such positive discrimination may not be regarded as unconstitutional." [AB Decision 9/1990 (IV. 25.)] The legislative intended to offer an opportunity for each citizen to obtain at least one tertiary qualification when determining the scope of state-funded undergraduate training. Thus the regulation is regarded as positive discrimination aimed at equal opportunities in line with the provisions of the Constitution. (K-OJOG-409/2001)

The Constitutional Court stated that this distinction might only be regarded as unconstitutional if the discrimination is arbitrary. However, the discrimination applied with respect to the state funding of higher educational training is not unjustified. The state may not be obliged to offer an unlimited number of tertiary training courses for an individual free-of-charge. Individuals with tertiary qualifications are capable of financing their possible further studies from their own income following their employment. It is also an acceptable educational policy goal that the state does not grant a exemption from tuition fees to those failing in attempting to obtain a tertiary qualification or those attempting to obtain another qualification by aborting their studies. All this, of course, may not mean the denial of further tertiary study or additional degree obtaining opportunities from anybody after the obtaining of a first degree. The financing of this, however, must be provided for by the individual under the current regulations. The Constitutional Court pointed out that Parliament and the Government are in charge of determining the educational policy. There is no constitutional obstacle to the state establishing a system of supporting higher educational participants, to granting or withdrawing benefits. The state may, however, not be forced with the means of constitutional law to do so. With a view to all the above, the Constitutional Court rejected the motion to establish the unconstitutionality of and to annul the protested provision. (AB Decision 675/B/2000)

Complainants claimed that they aborted their first state-funded undergraduate training without obtaining a diploma and applied for the state-funded training in another higher educational institution. According to the applications, the complainants were informed by the higher educational institution that they may only enrol in cost-payment courses since the state-funded training form is only available to those applying for their first undergraduate training and in case of the applicants, the training pursued in their previous higher educational institution is regarded as the first undergraduate training.
We established that the position of the higher educational institution was unfounded. Pursuant to Section d) of Article 124/E of the Act on Higher education, the first undergraduate training means the training aimed at the obtaining of the first university or college qualification or special qualification in an undergraduate training major in which the student is first enrolled in the course of the admission proceedings and establishes a student legal relationship through enrolment in line with the stipulations of the Act on Higher education. This point in the legislation, at the same time, states that the detailed rules of supporting students and the training, in the case of a change of majors before obtaining a qualification or special qualification or double-major training, would be resolved by the Government in a decree. Thus the cited provision of the Act on Higher education allows for the possibility of changing majors within the scope of the first undergraduate course under the terms and conditions provided for in the Government Decree. Article 6 of Government Decree 120/2000 (VII. 7.) regulates the terms and conditions of changing majors as mentioned above. Pursuant to the provisions of this point in the legislation, students are included in the state-funded student enrolment for the duration specified in the qualification requirement of the first major even after the change of majors.

With a view to the above, we contacted the head of the higher educational institution concerned with the recommendation to refrain from excluding eligible applicants from the state-funded training form after the change of majors. In addition to this initiative, we provided every university and college in the country with a report stating our position. The higher educational institution concerned changed its practice as a result of this initiative, the position on the change of majors was also accepted by the Minister of Education. (K-OJOG-340/2001, K-OJOG-347/2001) (6)