A parent turned to us with a complaint because her child was physically hurt by a teacher of the school. The petitioner attached a medical report of the incident showing that the child suffered injuries which would heal within eight days. According to the parent, in addition to the physical aggression, the teacher derided the boy in front of the class. In her declaration, the head of the institution explained that when the parent had reported the incident to her, she discussed it with her colleague to clarify the issue. In this conversation, the teacher admitted that she had hit the pupil. The teacher claimed that the child behaved in an undisciplined manner during the lesson, was not paying attention, and his behaviour and comments disturbed the teacher and his peers in their work. The boy had left his seat several times and had run up and down in the classroom. Therefore the teacher finally wanted to slap the child on the bottom with a thirty centimetre long wooden ruler, but the child instinctively jerked his arms back, so he was hit on the elbow. The teacher claimed that she hadn't derided the child. The head of the school explained that the teacher regretted what she had done, but the undisciplined behaviour of the boy - which was not exceptional - had made her loose her temper. The head of the institution was of the opinion that the pupil's behaviour was not an excuse for the teacher's act, and gave an oral warning to her colleague. With this, she regarded the incident as settled. In our view, the corporal punishment used as a disciplinary measure by the teacher constituted an infringement of the pupil's right to human dignity. Therefore, we presented an initiative to the head of the institution in this spirit. The head of the school accepted our initiative. (K-OJOG-169/2003.)

A father turned to us with a complaint that his son was physically hurt by a teacher of the school. According to the parent, in addition to the physical abuse, the teacher humiliated and harassed the child, and on several occasions his son went home from school crying. In his declaration the head of the institution set forth that the teacher did hit the petitioner's child. The teacher explained it by saying that the child's behaved had been undisciplined during the lesson. The head of the school was of the opinion that the teacher had used an unacceptable method to maintain discipline, and inflicted the disciplinary sanction of censure on the teacher, without a disciplinary proceeding. The head of the school informed the petitioner of the above, and the teacher apologised to the parent and the student. The head of the school thought that with this, the problem between the parent and the teacher was settled.

In our inquiry, we established that the corporal punishment used as a disciplinary measure by the teacher constituted an infringement of the pupil's right to human dignity. Under Paragraph (8) of Article 46 of Act XXXIII of 1992 on the legal status of public employees, a disciplinary proceeding may be forgone if the breach of obligations is not serious and the state of affairs has been clarified. However, under Paragraph (2) of the above Article, it is obligatory to conduct a disciplinary proceeding if there is well-grounded suspicion that a serious disciplinary offence has been committed. In this case, the disciplinary proceeding may not be forgone. Our position is that the teacher commits a serious disciplinary offence by using corporal punishment, and in such cases, the law requires the employer to launch a disciplinary proceeding. In accordance with a Supreme Court decision, teachers may not apply corporal punishment vis a vis children taught or supervised by them. If it does happen, the disciplinary offence committed by the teacher is so grave that even the most serious disciplinary penalty may be proportionate. (BH 1998. 53.) In addition to the limits imposed on the use of disciplinary measures described above, our initiative also proposed that the school take into account the relevant provisions of the Act on Public Employees in any future cases of corporal punishment in the school. (K-OJOG-115/2003.)

A parent turned to us to complain that her child was subjected to corporal punishment at school. In contrast to this, the teacher claimed that she had not used corporal punishment, only tapped the child on the head when the child was unruly. According to the teacher, it was not done with anger, but with love, and the student did not complain. Our position is that an act like this constitutes an infringement of the pupil's right to human dignity even if it is done by the teacher not to insult but to educate. In view of the above, we formulated an initiative in this case, which was accepted by the head of the institution, who also informed our Office that the position of the Commissioner for Educational Rights on corporal punishment would be incorporated into the section of the school's rules of operation and organisation which deals with disciplinary measures. (K-OJOG-436/2003.)

A father contacted our Office in the name of several parents, describing problems relating to a certain teacher of a school. The petitioner claimed that this teacher humiliated her pupils before their peers on a regular basis. For example, on one occasion, she told one of her pupils that she looked like a monkey, and then she made the child lie about the case. The petitioner complained that the teacher was aggressive with the pupils during the lessons and used unacceptable words and gestures. According to the parent, the teacher also subjected one of the pupils to corporal punishment. In contrast to this, the head of the school said that the majority of the parents did not share the petitioner's opinion of the teacher. The head of the school explained that a parents' meeting had been convened to discuss the issue, where the parents declared that they did not agree with the petitioner, and expressed their regret for the humiliating situation the teacher and the teaching staff had to face as a consequence of the events. The principal stated that the school took all feedback received from parents very seriously, and therefore a staff meeting had also been held to discuss the problem. The minutes of this meeting reveal that the teachers believed the problem to result from a conflict relating to the photo board of the eighth grade pupils. The petitioner had moved his children to another school due to a conflict between the pupils, but wanted his son's photo to be put on the board. The head of the school claimed that everybody was against the idea of putting on the board the photo of a pupil who had at that time attended another school for some time. The teachers believed that the father had become angry with the school management and the teaching staff as a result of this conflict, and tried to get support from other parents by making them sign the letter sent to us. At the staff meeting, the head of the school expressed his opinion that some parents had not really known what they were made to sign. Finally, on the recommendation of the head of the school, the staff meeting adopted the position that the petitioner could not act on behalf of the other parents because his children had already left the school, and therefore he was not a member of the Parents' Association any more.

In this case, we are of the position that the applicable legislation does not contain any provisions on whose photo may be put on the photo board of a class, and under what conditions. The same applies to whether a former pupil of a school has the right to have his photo put on the photo board of school leavers. If a dispute arises in a school in connection with such issues, the involved parties must settle it themselves. The petition described several problems in general terms, and the father indicated that the affected parties could provide evidence of concrete events. Therefore we asked the affected parties to provide information to our Office in writing on the cases mentioned, to enable verification. In their letter, the parents confirmed father's claims, i.e. that the reason why his son left the school was not his conflict with his peers but the offensive and humiliating attitude of the class teacher. The parents claimed that the pupil was liked by his peers and that many of them continued to keep in touch with him after he had left the school. It was actually them who suggested putting his photo on the board of school leavers. The parents stated that the problems caused by the teacher affected them all, and therefore they formulated their complaint together. Many of them, however, were frightened when they learned about the possible consequences threatened by the school, and tried not to get involved in the matter any longer. In addition to describing specific events, the parents unanimously stated in their letters that the teacher abused the students physically and mentally on a regular basis. We established that the teacher's conduct, methods of maintaining discipline and the way she treated individual children constituted an infringement of the pupil's right to human dignity, and therefore we presented an initiative formulated in this spirit to the head of the school. The head of the institution accepted our initiative. (K-OJOG-915/2003.)

A petitioner indicated in the name of several parents that a teacher of a school used corporal punishment on a regular basis. The parents also complained about the offensive, humiliating language the teacher used when talking to their children. One of the parents contacted the principal to discuss the issue. The principal informed our Office how she had first learned of these serious complaints about the teacher at a parents' meeting. Upon the parent's complaint, the head of the institution questioned the teacher, who denied the use of corporal punishment. She admitted that she had held a pupil's head every now and then, but she had never slapped anybody on the face and not abused children in any other way. The principal explained that the class teacher responsible for the class in question also talked to the pupils to obtain as much information of what had happened as possible. The head of the institution informed us that the authority maintaining the school and the Family Support Centre had also contacted the school to discuss the problem with this teacher. Following that, the head of the institution talked to the teacher and the class teacher again, and then interviewed her deputies and the chair of the Parents' Association of the class. The head of the institution said that the accusation of using corporal punishment brought against the teacher had been rejected by all. The head of the institution explained that at this point, she discussed the issue with the parent again. The principal said that in that conversation, the parent upheld the view that the teacher had physically abused the children, but admitted that it had not happened again since the report. The head of the institution said that the parent claimed during this discussion that the teacher had used offensive language and made sarcastic remarks about her son. On the basis of the inquiry conducted in the school, the head of the institution drew the following conclusions: the pupils were not aware of physical aggression. The class teachers did not receive complaints about physical aggression from either the parents or the pupils. The principal and her deputies received a complaint about this issue only from a single parent. The chair of the Parents' Association knew about the report, but was unable to substantiate the claims therein. Our position regarding this case is the following: as the information received from the petitioners was different from the information received from the head of the institution, the available information was not sufficient to establish that the educational rights had been infringed. As regards the offensive words and humiliating language used by the teacher, we have established that the declaration of the head of the institution did not refute the parents' complaints. Our position is that the offensive words and humiliating language used by the teacher may have infringed the pupil's right to human dignity. We presented our initiative in this spirit, and it was accepted by the head of the institution. (K-OJOG-350/2003.)

The conflict between a parent and the management of the school his child attended was caused by an unsuccessful attempt to clarify whether the child had been physically hurt by a teacher. The parent explained that there had been several unsuccessful attempts to establish with certainty whether corporal punishment had been used or not. The father said that the situation influenced the child's situation at school in an extremely negative way. His grades dropped, and he received a humiliating punishment for a disciplinary issue he was not involved in. According to the parent, the boy had to stand in a corner in front of the teachers' room during every break. The principal's conclusion from the inquiry conducted in the school - which included interviews with pupils, teachers, the petitioner and other parents - was that there had not been any corporal punishment during the lesson. Therefore, based on the information available to us, it was not possible to verify the infringement of educational rights. The parent also complained that his child received worse grades after the incident. However, the study of the information in the copy of the class book provided by the principal did not make it possible to establish an indisputable relation between the grades of the pupil and the conflict between the parent and the school. Consequently, from the information available to us, it was not possible to establish that the grades implied an infringement of educational rights. The parent complained that his child had received humiliating punishment for an offence he had not committed. The principal said the following about this issue: upon hearing that the parents of a girl complained that she was being constantly harassed by three pupils, he decided to punish these pupils by making them stand outside the teachers' room in the breaks between lessons. It turned out later that the petitioner's son was not involved in the harassment, so the principal cancelled his punishment. In our view, this sanction used by the principal - i.e. making the pupils the parents complained about stand at a given place in all breaks as a punishment, to be seen by the other pupils and the teachers - constitutes an infringement of the pupils' right to human dignity. Naturally, if pupils behave in a manner which constitutes a breach of their obligations, various legal consequences may be invoked. Pursuant to Paragraph (1) of Article 76 of the Public Education Act, if a pupil is in a serious breach of obligations, a disciplinary proceeding shall be conducted. If the act of the pupil is not so serious that it would require a disciplinary proceeding, it may be sanctioned by disciplinary measures. The legislation regulates disciplinary proceedings in detail, whilst the forms of disciplinary measures and the principles of the application thereof are governed by the rules of operation and organisation of schools / student dormitories. However, the rules of operation and organisation may not contain unlawful disciplinary measures. If the head of the institution was convinced that the pupils had failed to observe their obligations, either a disciplinary proceeding or a lawful disciplinary measure defined by the rules of operation and organisation should have been used - following the satisfactory clarification of the circumstances of the incident and subject to the gravity of the offence. However, in the case of the petitioner's son, even a lawful disciplinary measure would have been in conflict with the law, as it turned out that the pupil had not committed the offence he was accused of, therefore his punishment was imposed without the clarification of the state of affairs. In view of the above, we presented an initiative to the principal, requesting measures to ensure that teachers would use lawful disciplinary measures only in the future. We also presented an initiative proposing that in case of future disciplinary measures used to sanction breach of obligations by pupils, such measures should be preceded by the clarification of the state of affairs and an exploration of the exact circumstances of the offence, as these are needed for decision making. The head of the institution accepted our initiative. (K-OJOG-431/2003.)

Our Office was contacted by the members of a Parents' Association, who complained about the conduct and the pedagogical methods of a teacher working with their children. This teacher humiliated and offended her pupils on a regular basis, and threatened them with using the same Spartan punishments she used at home with her own children. During lunch, she threatened the pupils by saying that those who would not eat all of the meal would be taken to the principal, who would punish them, or she would pour their drinks into their collars. After lunch her pupils had to lie on their desks without moving. She assessed her pupils knowledge in an unpredictable manner, and she often had demands that were impossible to meet. On several occasions, the pupils had to write a test on material she had not taught them yet. She did not write down the questions the pupils had to answer, so the instructions or requirements were not always clear for the pupils. She gave priority to her own subject over more skill-oriented subjects: on one occasion, the pupils had four successive periods of Hungarian grammar and literature, within one school day. She kept her pupils under emotional pressure, and did not let them visit their former teacher, whom they were fond of. She could not tolerate laughter and fun. The parents said that all this made their children dread school, and many of them often complained about constant stomach ache and had a temperature without any reason. The parents started to worry that all this would cause permanent mental injuries to their children. The principal informed our Office that the school management had started negotiations to resolve the conflict with the involvement of the teacher and the affected parents. The principal attached the records of these conversations to her declaration. The records reveal that the parents, the teacher and the school management were unable to come to an agreement on several issues. The teacher partly rejected the parents' accusations, and explained certain incidents from a different point of view than that of the petitioners. In response to a number of the parents' complaints, the teacher promised to change her attitude and methods in the future and to pay more attention to the children's problems. The principal accepted the teacher's promises and asked the parents to take efforts to prevent conflicts. In connection with this, the parents were encouraged to study the pedagogical programme of the school, so that they could be aware of the requirements. In addition to this, the principal suggested organising monthly dialogues in the next academic year to detect and resolve possible conflicts between the school and the parents and to ensure the effective teaching and education of children. Based on the above, we established that the parents and the school had conflicting views on several issues. However, in the given situation, we did not deem it possible for the parents to prove their claims rejected by the school. Consequently, the infringement of educational rights could not be established in connection with this part of their complaint. As regards those complaints which were accepted by the teacher and where she promised to change her attitude, our view was the following: the principal accepted the teacher's promises and in order to ensure that her colleague keeps these promises, the principal agreed with the parents on holding regular meetings which both herself and the teacher would attend. In our view, this can be an appropriate tool to avoid conflicts between the parents and the teacher and to clarify the differences of opinion in the future. However, the similarities of the children's physical and mental problems and the parents' experiences and unanimous positions relating to them suggested that the pedagogical methods of this teacher and the way she treated children was beyond the pedagogically acceptable limits of a teacher's rigour and infringed upon the pupils' right to human dignity. In view of the above, we presented an initiative, which was accepted by the head of the institution. (K-OJOG-916/2003.)

A parent reported that she had to find another school for her child because the conduct and methods of one of her teachers caused serious mental injuries to the young girl. According to the parent, the teacher treats weak nerved pupils who are more vulnerable than their peers in an offensive and humiliating manner. According to the parent, this treatment hurt her child, who was undergoing psychiatric treatment of depression. Often times the child arrived home from school crying, and had to take additional drugs, in particular tranquillisers, for her worsening condition. The mother said that she had informed the teacher of the child's condition, and asked her to be more considerate with the girl, in view of her condition. The teacher, however, abused the parent's trust, and humiliated the pupil before the class by talking about her problems publicly. The mother also found it injurious that the teacher was inconsistent in her assessments and often gave humiliating tasks that were impossible to complete. According to the petitioner, the teacher did not let pupils finish their answers to her questions and ridiculed or humiliated them before their classmates. Since these problems had forced many pupils to leave the school, the parents had asked the head of the institution for help, which resulted in temporary improvements only. The available information revealed that many parents had contacted even the maintainer of the school. The maintainer called upon the principal to take the necessary employer's measures in spite of the protected age of the teacher. According to the head of the institution, the school had earlier received a number of complaints about this teacher, which were addressed by the former principal. The principal admitted that the school management and the teachers received regular feedback from the parents on the humiliating methods and perfectionist demands of this teacher, who liked to label the students. Due to the repeated complaints, both principals had several conversations with the teacher, who promised to be more considerate and patient with the pupils, in other words, change the treatment the parents and the pupils complained about. In spite of the promises, the parents' complaints continued, but the principal thought that the protected age of the teacher did not allow the use of employer's measures against her.

Pursuant to Paragraph (1) of Article 19 of the Public Education Act, teachers have a right in their work to select the content of teaching, the teaching material and the methods of instruction, as well as to control and assess the work of children / pupils and to assess pupils' performance on the basis of the pedagogical programme. Under Paragraph (7) of the same Article, the fundamental task of teachers is providing education for the children / pupils put in their charge. In this context, it is especially their duty to consider the individual abilities, talents, pace of development, socio-cultural background and level of development and special educational needs of children / pupils in their educational and teaching activities, and help to realise children's' / pupils' potential. Furthermore, their obligations include respecting the human dignity and rights of children, pupils and parents. Consequently, teachers have a wide-ranging autonomy in terms of selecting the methods of teaching and assessing the pupils' performance. However, this autonomy is not without limits: its limits are defined by the other provisions of the Public Education Act, including the ones concerning pupils' rights and teachers' obligations. In their work, teachers may only use methods and tools that are not in conflict with the law.

In our view, the methods and treatment applied by this teacher constituted an infringement of the human dignity and human rights of the pupils and also a breach of the teacher's obligations described above. Pursuant to Paragraph (1) of Article 45 of the Act on Public Employees, public employees who have been found in breach of their material obligations arising from the public employee status are deemed to have committed a disciplinary offence. The Act on Public Employees only provides a general definition of disciplinary offence, as it is impossible to give an exhaustive list of the acts that may constitute an offence. Our position is that the fact that this teacher failed to observe the teacher's obligations described above means that she was also in breach of her obligations as a public employee. Under Paragraph (2) of the above Article of the Act on Public Employees, the following disciplinary penalties may be imposed on public employees who have committed a disciplinary offence: censure, extension of waiting time in the promotion system by not more than one year, deprival of a title awarded under the law, removal from a senior position, dismissal. Through the regulation of the system of public employees' accountability in disciplinary issues, the law enables employers to sanction conduct which is in conflict with the public employee status, in a differentiated manner. Our position is that the protected age of the teacher is not the only aspect the head of the institution should have taken into account in this case. If this teacher does not change her attitude, she may violate pupils' rights on a number of occasions before she retires. Naturally, prior to the disciplinary procedure, the principal, as the employer of the teachers working in the school, has the right to influence the work and conduct of the teacher by guiding it into the right direction. This is a right which follows from the principal's right to give instructions, and may be used to prevent infringements of this type and similar types. Giving instructions is not only a right, but also an obligation of the head of the institution, because an employer must give guidelines for work. Furthermore, pursuant to Paragraph (1) of Article 54 of the Public Education Act, the principal is responsible for the professional and lawful operation of the institution, exercises the employer's rights and makes decisions on operational issues in all matters that do not fall within the competence of others under the law or the collective bargaining agreement (Public Employee Regulations). The head of the educational institution is also responsible for the pedagogical work in the school. In view of the fact that neither the former nor the current principal was able to change the teacher's conduct by exerting influence as employer, we believed that it was necessary to examine the need for initiating a disciplinary proceeding against the teacher. Therefore, we presented an initiative, which was accepted by the head of the institution (K-OJOG-494/2003.)

A student of a vocational secondary school specialising in music and her mother reported to our Office that there were serious problems with the standard of provision and the methods used by the teachers. The mother said that a teacher of the school encouraged her daughter to apply for admission to the institution, but when she successfully entered the training programme after the second attempt to get admission, the teachers did not give adequate attention to her, and explained her poor performance by her lack of talent. According to the mother, the child was physically and mentally abused several times, and as a result needed psychological and then psychiatric treatment. According to the student, the teacher teaching the main subject pushed her head to a door-post because her posture was incorrect. The same teacher hit her on the back because her mouth was not in the right position, tied the instrument to her body with a skipping rope because she did not hold it correctly, and kicked her leg because her foot position was incorrect. According to the student, when the teacher hit her on the back, the instrument wounded her gums so seriously that she started bleeding. In contrast to this, the teacher said that he had not assaulted the student, but admitted that he had tied the instrument to the girl with a rubber band to help her hold it correctly. The teacher believed that this method could help students make considerable progress within a short time. In our view, one of the main causes of the conflict between the petitioners and the school was that the parties had different opinions of the talents of the student. As this is an issue which only professionals can decide, we are not in a position to form an opinion. In the same way, we are not in the position to form an opinion on the methodological issues of teaching how to play an instrument, as long as the teacher respects the human dignity and human rights of the student in the teaching process. In our view, a method where the teacher ties the instrument to the students' body with a rubber band to teach them how to hold it correctly should not be used even if it can lead to remarkable progress within a short time. This solution, which led to the situation the petitioners deemed very humiliating, constitutes an infringement of the student's right to human dignity. Based on the foregoing, we established that by using a teaching method where the instrument is tied to the student's body with a rubber band to teach correct posture, the teacher infringed the rights of the student laid down in Paragraph (2) of Article 10 of the Public Education Act. In view of the above, we presented an initiative to the head of this vocational secondary school specialising in music, suggesting that in the future, teachers should only use teaching methods that do not violate the student's human dignity and human rights. (K-OJOG-897/2003.)

Egy diák kereste meg hivatalunkat azzal a problémával, hogy mit lehet tenni akkor, ha egy tanár a tanuló személyiségi jogait figyelmen kívül hagyva az egész osztály előtt megalázza és megfenyegeti, hogy megbuktatja. A tanuló számára elküldtük a kérdéssel kapcsolatos állásfoglalásunkat. (K-OJOG-306/2003.)

Egy diákönkormányzat vezetője fordult hozzánk azzal a kérdéssel, hogy mit tehetnek abban az esetben, ha az iskola egyik pedagógusa rendszeresen sértegeti és megalázza a tanulókat. A fentiekben foglaltaknak megfelelően tájékoztattuk a diákönkormányzat vezetőjét. (K-OJOG-277/2003.)

Egy nagymama kérte segítségünket az alábbi problémával kapcsolatban. Unokáját az iskolában bántalmazta egyik osztálytársának édesanyja, mivel a tanulók között kialakult konfliktusban így próbálta megvédeni gyermekét. Mivel a bántalmazott gyermek szülei nem tettek feljelentést, és az intézményvezető eljárását sem kezdeményezték, a nagyszülő úgy érezte, hogy büntetlenül maradt egy olyan cselekmény, amelynek nem lett volna szabad megtörténnie az iskolában. A nagymamát az ügyben tájékoztattuk a következőkről. A házasságról, a családról és a gyámságról szóló 1952. évi IV. törvény 86. § (1) bekezdése szerint a szülői felügyeletet gyakorló szülő joga és kötelessége, hogy kiskorú gyermekét mind személyi, mind vagyoni ügyeiben képviselje. A szülő joga és kötelessége tehát, hogy amennyiben úgy érzi, hogy gyermeke érdeke megkívánja, eljárást indítson jogainak védelme érdekében. A szülők lehetőségeiket mérlegelve úgy döntöttek, hogy a bántalmazás ügyében sem az intézményvezetőnek címzett panaszt, sem feljelentést nem tesznek. E szülői döntést a büntető hatóságok és hivatalunk is tiszteletben tartotta. A rendeletünk szerint akkor van lehetőségünk vizsgálatot indítani, ha a panasz a jogsérelemben érintettől, vagy - ha a jogsérelemben érintett nem cselekvőképes korú - törvényes képviselőjétől érkezik. A nagyszülő beadványára, amennyiben nem ő a törvényes képviselő, nem áll módunkban eljárást indítani. Mindezek mellett megértettük a nagyszülő aggodalmát, de bíztunk abban, hogy a szülők teljes belátással bírnak a helyzet megítélésére, és a gyermek testi épségét fenyegető veszély oka - a szülők között történt megbeszélés után - már nem állt fenn. (K-OJOG-519/2003.)

A student turned to our Office to find out what a student can do when a teacher, ignoring the student's human rights, humiliates the student before the whole class and threatens the student that he or she will be made to repeat a year. We sent the student our position on this issue. (K-OJOG-306/2003.)

The head of a student self-government turned to us asking what the students can do when a teacher of the school insults and humiliates them on a regular basis. We provided information to the head of this student self-government in the spirit of the above. (K-OJOG-277/2003.)

A parent contacted the Office, because his son was hit on the eye by a rubber ball thrown at him by another student in a PE lesson, and suffered a serious injury. In response to his inquiry, the parent was informed of the requirements laid down in legislation concerning pupil and child accidents. All other provisions, including the concrete responsibilities of teachers in case of accidents, must be laid down in the local regulations of the institutions. Therefore we suggested that the parent study the relevant provisions of the school's rules of the house and the rules of organisation and operation. He was also informed that if, having studied the above legal provisions and the relevant sections of the local regulations of the institution, he finds that his child's educational rights have been infringed, he may file a petition for an inquiry with our Office. (K-OJOG-746/2003)

A parent contacted the Office because her child had not felt well at school, and asked for permission to go to see a doctor in school time. However, the class teacher did not let the child leave school in school time, so she could only go to see a doctor later, with the permission of another teacher. At that time, however, the doctor's consulting hours had been over, so the child went home. The parent found it injurious that the teacher had not let the child go to see a doctor. In her declaration, the principal confirmed that the class teacher had not let the child go to see a doctor. In our inquiry, we looked at the lawfulness of the teacher's decision. Pursuant to Section 11 of Paragraph (1) of Article 121 of the Public Education Act, teachers must look after the children, and this obligation includes ensuring the protection of the physical integrity of students from the time of entering the education institution to the time of lawfully leaving it. It follows from this that students need the permission of the teacher to lawfully leave the institution during school time, and even then, only if their supervision is ensured for the period when they are away. . In the fulfilment of their obligation to look after students, teachers must consider what action would be the most expedient in a given situation, and use their own discretion to make a decision. With such decisions, teachers must assume responsibility - including liability under criminal law - for the consequences. In our view, a teacher may decide lawfully that a student may not leave the school to go to see a doctor. On the other hand, this means that the teacher making such decision may be held responsible for the worsening of the child's condition if it can be proved later that it was caused by the lack of immediate medical examination. In view of the above, we established no infringement of educational rights in this case. (K-OJOG-427/2003.)

A father filed a complaint with our Office that boys from the upper grades of the school had to shovel snow in school time. According to the parent, many of these students had health problems, including asthma. The head of the institution explained that there were construction works in progress in the school at that time, and the students could not use the gym. The teachers therefore decided to move the physical education sessions outdoors. The principal also informed the Office that the PE teacher had decided, in view of the exceptionally heavy snowfall, to ask the students to clear the snow away as part of their outdoor exercise. The principal explained that the students received a health and safety training on how to handle snow shovels. The students worked with great enthusiasm, taking relatively short turns at shovelling, because there were only a few snow shovels. The head of the institution said that snow shovelling was not compulsory, and those who did not want to join could play in the snow without being sanctioned. In her declaration, the principal emphasised that the petitioner's child was not exempted from participating in physical education, and therefore did not need special treatment. In our inquiry, we established that the PE teacher had asked for the students' help in snow shovelling as part of an activity which was to take place outdoors in any case, after due consideration and after providing the necessary health and safety information. The infringement of the educational rights of the affected students could not be established. Nevertheless, we called the attention of the head of the institution to the fact that in the hierarchical system of an educational institution, the issue whether a task is undertaken voluntarily can not be determined unambiguously. There might be cases where students appear to volunteer for a task, whilst they only undertake to do it because they fear - with or without any well-founded reason - that they would otherwise suffer disadvantages or get punished for not volunteering. Therefore, it is essential to make sure that students have a real choice in cases like this, and the teacher asking for help should make it clear that the task is not compulsory. On the other hand, as a result of the amendment of the Public Education Act by Act LXI of 2003, a new Section c) has been added to Paragraph (1) of Article 12 of the former, whereby students are required contribute to the maintenance of their own environment and the tools used by them, in a manner adjusted to the age, level of development, school or dormitory schedule of the students, under the supervision or, if necessary, instructions of a teacher, in accordance with the provisions of the rules the house. Therefore, having regard to the occasional issues relating to voluntary tasks; it is useful to regulate in the rules of the house the exact conditions for students' contribution to the maintenance of the school environment. (K-OJOG-189/2003.)

A teacher of physical education inquired whether he could ban all jewellery from PE lessons as a safety measure. He also wanted to know if the parents who disagreed with the prohibition could overrule his decision by assuming responsibility for accidents that may occur in the lessons. The teacher was informed that pursuant to Section e) of Paragraph (3) of Article 10 of the Public Education Act, students may not enforce their rights in a manner which constitutes a risk to the health and safety of the students themselves or of the staff of the educational institution. Under Paragraph (7) of Article 40 of the Public Education Act, schools must lay down in their rules of the house the detailed rules of enforcing the rights and obligations of students, the rules on classroom and extracurricular activities and on the use of the facilities and other areas belonging to the school. Under these provisions, the institution may in its rules of the house prohibit students from taking to school or class certain objects that may represent a hazard to health and safety. However, judging what kind of objects may be classified as hazardous will require individual consideration in each case. It can be established with certainty that the general prohibition of all kinds of jewellery raises concerns because it cannot be upheld that any piece of jewellery presents a serious hazard to the health and safety of students and staff members. As regards the responsibility for accidents, the teacher was informed of the teacher's obligations concerning the safeguarding of the health and safety of students. Our position is that if a teacher intends to have a lesson under circumstances which may be hazardous to the health and safety of students, the students' right to a safe and healthy environment will be infringed, and the teacher may be held responsible for making such decisions. Therefore, it is not possible for the parents to assume responsibility for the health and safety of students, as that responsibility lies with the teacher. (K-OJOG-93/2003.)

The proposed 'Youth Referendum 2003' scheme would have involved 14 to 18 years old secondary school students, who were to express their opinion on Hungary's accession to the EU, on 9 April 2003, in a referendum similar to the national one. The inquiry into the related concerns revealed that the organisers wanted to use the network of secondary schools in the scheme to reach the population 14 to 18 year olds. The idea was that the institutions or the principals would apply for participation, the students would go to the polls in the schools and students and teachers would be equally involved in the organisation and implementation. The list of students entitled to vote was to be compiled on the basis of the class registers available at the schools. However, the class registers contain data that are classified as the students' personal data under the Act on Data Protection, and such data may not be used without statutory authorisation or the consent of the data owners. In accordance with Annex 2 of the Public Education Act, schools may process and keep records of the personal data of students specified therein, such as the name and date of birth of students. However, this does not mean that these data may be used for any purpose. Personal data may be used for a specific purpose only. The institution, the principal and teachers of the institution may use personal data for the purpose and within the limits of performing their duties defined in the Public Education Act. Consequently, the Act does not provide for the use of the class registers for the implementation of a referendum. Without a statutory authorisation, the names of students and the data relating to participation in a referendum could only be used with the individual consent of students (or their lawful representatives). Clearly, obtaining such consent from each and every student (or their lawful representatives) is a practical obstacle to the implementation of schemes of this kind. As regards the consent, there are further legal concerns as well. The data owner's consent to the use of personal data is valid only if it is voluntary, which is a very sensitive issue in the light of the above mentioned dependencies which characterise school life. The application of the school was a prerequisite to participating in the scrutinised scheme. This means that the school will have expressed its intention to participate, thereby taking a stand on participating in the referendum. If this is taken into account, the voluntary nature of the consent - given in a state of dependency - is deemed questionable, which will in turn make the validity of the legal basis of the use of data questionable. (K-OJOG-90/2003.)

In connection with a sociometric survey conducted in a school, a parent reported that students in the class her child attended had to answer in writing the following questions in a class session: 'Who do you like best in your class?', 'Who do you like the least?', 'Whom do you trust most?', 'Whom do you trust the least?' The students had to reply to each question by giving three names ranked in the order of preference, and had to write their names onto the answer sheets. Answering the questions was compulsory for all. In our inquiry, we learned from the principal that the data were collected for a sociometric survey, and the task was a compulsory task for the students. The documents of the survey were kept in a locked cabinet by the class teacher. The data were not forwarded to anybody, and the documents were destroyed with a paper shredder after the sociogram was completed. The sociogram contained encoded data. Based on the available information, we reminded the principal that educational institutions must also observe the requirements of the Act on Data Protection. Neither the Public Education Act, nor any other regulation authorises schools or teachers to process the information requested in this sociometric survey. The students (or their lawful representatives) did not give their consent to the processing of data, and participation in the survey cannot be regarded as consent, as the provision of the information was made compulsory for the students due to the circumstances of the survey. The principal was also informed that the enrolment of the students, based on their right to a free choice of school - and the implied acceptance of the programme and methods of the school - cannot be considered as a substitute for the consent to the use of data. As the students' personal data were used unlawfully in this sociometric survey, and the data have been destroyed since then, we presented an initiative to the head of the institution, proposing that special emphasis should be placed in the future on respecting the rights of students to the protection of their personal data. The head of the school accepted our initiative. (K-OJOG-78/2003.)

The deputy principal of a vocational secondary school turned to our Office asking if the school had to send a copy of its decision made at a disciplinary hearing to the dormitory where the offending student lived, so that the dormitory can sanction the same act. Pursuant to Paragraph (8) of Article 76 of the Public Education Act, a student may only receive one disciplinary penalty for one offence. If both the school and the dormitory has a reason to impose a disciplinary penalty on the student for an offence, the penalty must be imposed by the educational institution which started the disciplinary proceeding earlier, unless otherwise provided for by an agreement between the educational institutions concerned. However, this provision does not require the school to provide any information. The decisions made by schools in disciplinary issues contain personal data, which may only be disclosed either with the consent of the data owner or pursuant to a statutory provision. Considering that the legislation on education does not require schools to provide information to dormitories on their decisions concerning disciplinary issues, the right to the protection of personal data prevails, and the data may not be disclosed. (K-OJOG-177/2003.)

A parent's petition contained a complaint that students had to use the blank side of the pages of a spoiled copy of a report made by the youth protection officer of the secondary grammar school to write a test. The petitioner attached copies of the youth protection officer's report and the student's test. We were informed by the principal that youth protection officers prepare reports upon receiving an inquiry from the authorities, and make notes as part of their duties, for their own use. The latter are not accessible to anyone but the youth protection officer. The youth protection officers use the notes on students as long as they attend the school, and they destroy the spoiled and obsolete document. However, the inquiry conducted by the principal revealed that the spoiled copies of the youth protection report made at the end of the academic year 2001/2002 may not have been handled with sufficient care. Article 10 of the Act on Data Protection requires data users to ensure the protection of the data, and to take all necessary technical and organisational measures and establish procedures to comply with the rules of data protection. Data must be protected in particular from unauthorised access, alteration, disclosure, deletion, damage and destruction. The rights of the students are infringed when the school does not comply with the statutory regulations on the protection of personal data. We established that the school had infringed on the students' right to the protection of personal data, because the reports made by the youth protection officer had been handled in a manner enabling unauthorised access. Therefore, we presented an initiative that the principal should place the observation and enforcement of data protection rules at the centre of attention. The head of the institution accepted our initiative. (K-OJOG-504/2003.)

The results of the secondary school-leaving examination, the grades and the content of negative decisions, if any, are deemed to be the personal data of the student participating in the examination, and as such, they are not public. Nevertheless, under Paragraph (3) of Article 3 of the Act on Data Protection, the law may require the publication of personal data, by expressly specifying the scope of such data, where public interest so requires. In any other case, publicity requires the consent of the affected parties. As regards the results of the secondary school-leaving examinations, it is evident that such consent may not be the legal basis of publicity. Therefore, we need to find a statutory provision that can be used as a legal basis for the publication of the results. Pursuant to Paragraph (1) of Article 9 of the Public Education Act, oral examinations are public. However, this provision cannot be applied to the entire examination, as it provides for publicity with respect to a certain part, namely the oral component of the secondary school-leaving examination. Although the meeting where the results are announced is usually held shortly after the oral component of the examination, it is not part of it, and the said provision does not provide for its publicity. In accordance with Annex 2 to the same Act, the data relating to the assessment of student performance may be disclosed within the class and teaching staff concerned, to the parents, the board of examiners, the organiser of practical training, the party concluding a study contract, and, if the assessment is not made by the school, to the school, and in case of changing schools, to the new school, to the person ensuring professional control. Pursuant to Paragraphs (5) and (6) of Article 2 of the Act on Data Protection, the difference between 'disclosure' and 'publication' is that in the former case, the group of those receiving the information can be defined, in other words the data are disclosed to specific third parties, whilst in the latter case, access is provided to all. Therefore, the data relating to the assessment of student performance may not be published pursuant to these provisions, either. The results of the secondary school-leaving examination and the decisions of the board of examiners may be announced publicly under Gov. Decree 100/1997 (VI. 13.) on the publication of the rules for the secondary school-leaving examination of secondary schools. The government decree is a lower level legal instrument than the acts of parliament and, in accordance with the above mentioned Paragraph (3) of Article 3 of the Act on Data Protection, it should not allow such publicity, as is could only be provided for in an act. The public announcement of results and decisions is one of the essential guarantees of lawfulness in this procedure, in the same way as in other procedures outside the educational sector. In the announcement of decisions, publicity is a means of control. Publicity ensures that the authority (the board of examiners in this case) observe the requirements of the law, otherwise it has to face criticism and is made accountable by the public. In view of the above, we consider the current regulations adequate and worth maintaining, but publicity should be required at act level. This could be done by an amendment to the Public Education Act by adding to the above mentioned Paragraph (1) of Article 9 a provision allowing publicity at both the oral examination and the meeting where the results are announced. (K-OJOG-747/2003.)

A teacher asked what information may appear on the public web site of the school concerning its students and teachers. Can the school disclose the age, subject, place of graduation of the teachers, the names of class teachers, the address and class of students? In our reply, we informed the petitioner that the law allowed the publication of some of these data without the data owners' consent, but most of these data could not be disclosed. Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Article 83/B of the Act on Public Employees, of the data registered in the basic records kept of public employees, the name of the employer and the name and classification of the public employee may be disclosed without the prior knowledge and consent of the public employee concerned. Therefore, a teacher's employer, name and classification may be published on the web site automatically. Any other data of teachers and all personal data of students may only be published on the Internet, where it is accessible to all, with the data owner's consent. Naturally, the teachers of the school who are not public employees (if any) must be asked to give consent to the publication of any of their data. (K-OJOG-27/2003.)

The head of an institution inquired about access to the assessed tests, claiming that this was not specifically regulated by any law. Pursuant to the Act on Data Protection, everything a student has written in a test or paper, including the answers to questions, which reflect the student's knowledge, must be regarded as personal data. Therefore, the student's answer to a question is the student's personal data, governed by the regulations on data protection. Pursuant to Section a) of Paragraph (4) of Article 2 of the Act on Data Protection, the collection, recording, storing, processing, utilisation (including disclosure and publication) and deletion of personal data are deemed to be use of personal data, irrespective of the applied method. Having regard to this, all natural or legal persons and organisations without a legal status which determine the purpose of the use of data, which take and implement decisions thereon or which may assign implementation to a data processor, shall be regarded a data user under Section a) of Paragraph (7) of Article 2 of the Act on Data Protection. In the context of personal data included in tests and papers, the user of such data is the public education institution, which must therefore comply with statutory provisions applicable to data users. These include the obligation of providing information on the data used and the circumstances of data use on the request of the data owner. Under the law, a typical way of exercising the right to information is requesting information from the data user by letter which the data user will reply. Naturally, in the public education sector this is not necessarily done this way. Information may be provided by providing access to documents (this is how information is provided on the use of data in tests and papers). In this case, the data owner has an opportunity to see, either in full or in part, the process of data use itself and the scope of the data used. However, when the data owner expressly requests, providing information in writing cannot be foregone. This means that, upon request, the data owner must be provided with a written document containing the answers given to the data owner's questions in compliance with the requirements of the law. If the data owner is interested in the scope of data being used, the data user may comply with the requirements for providing information by providing access to the relevant documents (which are the tests or papers in this case), and upon the data owner's request, the data user must at least provide copies of them. As the law requires the information to be given in writing, the data user may not deny the provision of written information. Having regard to the fact that the personal way of writing, including the order of answers and their position on the top, bottom or back of a sheet, are also personal data - and disputes arising in connection with the calculation of scores often relate to these - the most expedient way of complying with the requirement for information is providing a photocopy of the data used.

Students do not necessarily exercise their right to information arising from their right to the protection of personal data for its own sake, but to present their objections to the assessment of the paper or test, or even to learn from their mistakes. A necessary prerequisite to an objection is to know the test / paper and the assessment the student intends to file a complaint about. The teachers' autonomy in their teaching activities does not preclude the possibility of providing access to a paper/test to others (e.g. parents or private tutors), who may help the student in formulating an objection. Again, this requires having a copy of the test /paper or assessment. However, even otherwise - pursuant to the above mentioned right to dispose of personal information, which is a fundamental constitutional right - data owners have a right to receive information on their personal data,, irrespective of whether they intend to use such information for any purpose. In view of the above, we suggested developing a regulation which would allow students to look at their tests and papers, and may make copies thereof, if they insist on doing so. This way, the institution can avoid the loss or disappearance of documents, as well as the infringement of student rights. (K-OJOG-859/2003.)