A parent came to see us because her son was repeatedly exposed to atrocities at school. According to the parent, the principal of the school abused the child in the school hall because the child violated house rules. The child sustained injuries healing within eight days. As a result of the incident, the municipality operating the school launched disciplinary proceedings against the head of the institution, who, after the proceedings were concluded, received disciplinary punishment. According to the parent the child's behaviour has worsened since the incident, and there have been disciplinary measures taken against him as well. It is the parent's opinion that this is in connection with the fact that the disciplinary action was taken against the school's principal based on his report. During the proceedings we requested a statement from the mayor of the settlement, as the representative of the institution legally supervising the institution complained against.

In his reply, the mayor announced that as disciplinary punishment the disciplinary committee stripped the principal of his title of senior counsellor, and has extended the waiting time in the promotion system by one year. The mayor's opinion was that the disciplinary body has sufficiently studied and dealt with the case. However, he did feel it important to emphasise that "the incident did not involve the repeated hitting of the face, it was only one slap" and also said that the slap was preceded by several warnings. The mayor also added that "the school has house rules, which-in accordance with Paragraph (7) of Article 40 of the Public Education Act-specifies, among other things, the manner in which student rights and obligations can be exercised. The provisions of this document must be adhered to by all children, but naturally, in cases of non-adherence, slapping children is not the direction to follow and we do not condone this method.

The mayor attached the documents of the case to the letter. Among these documents was the minutes of the hearing conducted by the disciplinary committee. This contained a statement by the principal saying the student has "violated the regulations of the school and previously warned by his teacher not to do so. The regulations clearly state that no body jewellery may be worn in school or on school events, (.)"

There were three, relatively clearly distinguishable issues to examine in the case. The first issue was to do with the disciplinary resolution and the conducting of the disciplinary proceedings, the second dealt with the evaluation of the post-disciplinary proceeding situation, while the third was the examination of the school's regulations.

In connection with issue one, the starting point proved to be the fact that the Commissioner for Educational Rights has no jurisdiction to review the disciplinary proceedings. For this reason we were unable to examine whether the passing of the disciplinary resolution occurred under lawful circumstances, with content that adhered to the statutes. In the course of the five years of our operation, we have taken the position that out of the acts performed against students, corporal punishment is the gravest and most serious. Physical abuse does not only endanger students' physical wellbeing, it also violates their right to human dignity, and therefore in such cases the launching of disciplinary proceedings is most certainly justified. As far as the content of the disciplinary decision is concerned, even though we have no desire to influence the disciplinary committee's decision, we would like to indicate a precedent decision passed by the Supreme Court for all similar cases. According to this, the most severe disciplinary action (dismissal) may be applied against teachers who use corporal punishment, without having the requirement of proportionality violated.

In terms of issue two, we have determined that in his reply, the mayor has informed us only of the circumstances of the disciplinary proceeding and has sent us the documents only in connection with this. At the same time he failed to touch on whether the student has since suffered abuse and whether this is in connection with the disciplinary proceeding. In his letter the mayor did not deny the existence of the above mentioned abuse.

Students in schools are in rather vulnerable positions. The evaluation of children is performed by the teachers, who are free to exercise this right of evaluation within the framework of the appropriate laws; furthermore, they have to option to apply various disciplinary measures. This is why it is particularly important that in such delicate situations there is absolutely no suspicion of the teachers abusing these rights. During its supervision of the public education institution, the maintainer responsible for the lawful operation of said institution must consider these aspects as well.

The deliberation of issue three is as follows. Even though the complainant does not mention this in the petition, the documents clearly show that the house rules generally prohibit the wearing of any type of body jewellery in school or at school events. Based on our previous experiences, we are now on the position that prohibition of all types of jewellery in school is worrying even if this is justified on the grounds that they may cause accidents. When developing the house rules it must be taken into account that, based on the Constitution, students, like everyone else, also have the right to individual self-determination. In our opinion when people make decisions regarding their clothing, hairstyle or the wearing of jewellery, then they are exercising their right to individual self-determination. Naturally this right also has limits; in justified cases restrictions may be applied. However, the basis for this restriction must in each case be the necessity to exercise other basic rights. Section e) of Paragraph (3) of Article 10 of the Public Education Act contains such restrictions where it specifies that students may not endanger their own health and safety, or the health and safety of other students or employees of the educational institution by exercising their rights. In accordance with this provision, institutions do not violate the law when, in house rules, they forbid students to take certain objects to school that may potentially cause accidents. At the same time it can also be determined that in the absence of statutory authorisation, the prohibition of all jewellery is an unjustified and exaggerated restriction of the right to individual self-determination, and as such is unlawful.

We respect to the above, we have sent an initiative to the representative of the maintainer performing legal supervision of the institution, in which we requested that in the future they should do everything in their power to prevent actions that violate the human dignity of students. We have also initiated that they should ensure that the student is not subject to atrocities due to the fact that it was his report that led to disciplinary proceedings against the school principal. Beyond the above measures, we have also recommended that, within its supervisory scope of competence, the maintainer ensures the coordination of house rules with statutes. The maintainer of the school has accepted our initiative (K-OJOG-153/2004.)

A parent complained that his child was physically abused by one of the school's teachers. He also protested that the principal did not make an adequate effort to investigate the matter, as during this investigation only the teacher was questioned, but not the student.

In his statement, the principal informed us that based on the parental complaint he has questioned the teacher who admitted to disciplining the student with a playful flick, but who also added that this happened after the student repeatedly failed to do his homework. The principal added that he instructed the teacher in question to restrain from such disciplinary actions in the future. The teacher admitted his mistake and since then no such problems have occurred (of which, according to the principal, the parent is also aware). It was the principal's position that it was unnecessary to question the child because the teacher admitted to the action. In connection with the matter, the principal requested a definition of the concept and degrees of bodily contact from the legal counsel of the Teachers' Union in order to be able to clearly define corporal punishment. Following reception of this opinion, he went on to inform the teaching staff of its content and repeated the instructions that teachers should avoid applying any unlawful disciplinary tools.

Our position on the matter is that such acts by teachers constitute a violation of the student's right to human dignity, even if it is committed by the teacher to educate and not to cause harm. Based on the above argumentation we have determined that the teacher has indeed applied unlawful disciplinary measures. For this reason we have developed an initiative for the future which the principal of the school has accepted. (K-OJOG-271/2004.)

A parent complained that his child was slapped by the teacher in computer class. According to the complainant, following the incident the principal of the school asked the student not to inform his parents of the matter. According to the parent, the principal told them after the incident that he will no longer allow the student to participate in physics and computer classes.

In his statement the principal set forth that the teacher did indeed strike hit the complainant's child. In the principal's opinion the reason for the teacher's act was the child's undisciplined behaviour in class. After the incident the teacher apologised to the student and the parents. The head of the institution also added that he acted in accordance with the provisions of the Act on the Legal Status of Civil Servants and the teacher has been appropriately punished. He has received a strict written reprimand and his bonus has been revoked. In connection with participating in physics and computer classes, the principal stated that the student may continue to attend these classes and there was never any talk of restricting attendance. According to the principal the log entries in fact support the fact that the student has attended all computer classes which proves he was not prohibited from visiting class. There were only two classes the student missed, immediately after the incident.

We have determined that there was no infringement in connection with verbal prohibition against the student to visit the above classes because the statements of the parents were not confirmed. At the same time it is our position that the corporal punishment applied by the teacher as a disciplinary means did violate the student's right to human dignity therefore, as in previous cases, we have developed initiatives for such incidents in the future, which the head of the institution accepted. (K-OJOG-883/2004.)

Parents lodged a complaint at our office and protested that the art class teacher pulled a plastic bag over their child's head in an effort to discipline him. Disciplinary proceedings have been launched against the teacher in question, as a result of which the teacher has been reprimanded in writing by the principal. The teacher's legal status with the school as a civil servant was terminated at a later date. The complainants, however, further protested that after six months the teacher was once again an employee of the school.

In his statement, the principal admitted that the teacher did indeed use unlawful disciplinary measures, and for this reason there was a disciplinary proceeding launched against him, as a result of which the teacher was reprimanded in writing. The teacher admitted his mistake, apologised to the parents then initiated the termination of his legal status as a civil servant. The principal informed us in his statement that he did re-employ the teacher after a few months. However, prior to start of employment he requested the professional opinion of a clinical psychologist (behavioural psychology counsellor) in connection with the teacher. The expert determined that the teacher was fit to take on a teaching position. (The expert opinion has been forwarded to our office as an attachment to the principal's statement.) Finally, the principal's statement also informed us that the teacher in question does not teach the student, has not had any conflicts with other students or parents, and there have been no professional problems in connection with him neither before, nor after the incident.

In this case we were able to determine that the student's educational right were indeed violated, however we felt that the situation has already been dealt with by the head within his jurisdiction, prior to out intervention. We did not send an initiative to the head of the institution, as by the time of our inquiry the teacher was no longer teaching the student, there were no further professional problems in connection with him, the expert opinion determined that he was fit to teach, and he has already been given disciplinary punishment for the use of unlawful disciplinary tools at the time of the incident. (K-OJOG-412/2004.)

A parent turned to us, because, among other things, a teacher failed to prevent students kicking his child during class. The head of the institution, in his statement, informed us that this happened because the student refused to work in class and was very undisciplined. Finally his classmates became angry since, due to the student in question, they failed to finish their work on time and were unable to go out and play in the yard. They started kicking the student, which the teacher put a stop to, but only after some time. The principal said that he has investigated the matter and did not deem it grave enough to launch disciplinary proceedings against the teacher. After conducting internal investigations and drawing the teachers' attention to the consequences of the incident at the teaching staff meeting, the principal considered the matter closed. In this case we have determined that educational rights were violated, since the teacher did not immediately stop the abuse, endangering the student. Taking the above into account, we have put forward an initiative that teachers fulfil their supervisory obligations in the future. The head of the institution accepted our initiative, and informed our office that he has called the teaching staff's attention to the fact that teachers should do everything in their power to prevent and terminate abusive behaviour among students. (K-OJOG-361/2004.)

A parent asked for our assistance with the following matter. His child was hurt in physical education class and his left hand had to be put in a splint for one week. Since the student was left-handed he was unable to take notes in class that week. The parent complained that the principal did not take this into consideration and wanted to force the child to learn to write with his right hand. He repeated this to the parents during a face to face meeting.

The principal, in his statement, partly admitted what has occurred, though he did this rather succinctly. In this statement he also informed us that he did not force the student to learn to write with his right hand, he simply asked him to do it. He added that it is difficult to take when a student does not work in class, and this particular student did not write or take notes and explained it with the fact that his hand was hurt. It was the opinion of the principal that in the sixth grade practising writing with another hand should not pose a problem for students.

In accordance with the provisions of the Public Education Act, as quoted above, it is a teacher's fundamental responsibility to teach children in his charge, and particularly to ensure students' physical wellbeing within the framework of this teaching activity. The personality, human dignity and rights of students' must be respected, and protection must be provided to them against physical and psychological abuse. It is our position that-provided it is necessary to put the student's hand in splints in order to protect his health-he should be (for the period indicated on the doctor's notice) excused from performing tasks which-due to his state of health-he is unable to perform (e.g. writing, taking notes, plotting) and should be given different tasks (e.g. reading, verbal tests). We found the principal's "request" that the student learn to use the other hand worrying. This is equally a challenge in the sixth grade as it is later on in life.

With respect to the above, we forwarded an initiative to the head of the institution that in the future he should respect the right of students to health and physical wellbeing at all times, and should act accordingly.

The principal did not accept our initiative. In his argument he presented methods used in teaching methodology, and quoted various statutes, though these were not interpreted correctly in each case. In his letter-among other things-he quoted from a book by László Zrinszky titled Neveléselmélet (Educational Theory) , according to which one of the methods of habit development is demanding. The principal, however, failed to take into account that according to the book this method should be used when transforming optimal forms of behaviour and activities into habits. In our opinion, learning to write with another hand is not an optimal form of activity that should be transformed into a habit. The principal, referring to the above, then went on repeatedly quote from the Public Education Act, which in fact does state that it is the teacher's responsibility to-among other things-ensure the development of student personality. He closed his letter with the following: Everything I did, I did according to the student's individual skills and talents in order to further the development of his personality.

With respect to the above, we made a recommendation to the maintainer exercising legal supervision over the school, and requested they take steps to ensure that in the future students' rights to health and physical wellbeing be respected by the school, which should act accordingly at all times. The mayor has informed our office that he agrees with our recommendation and has forwarded the matter to the Public Education Committee. The parent and the principal were also invited to attend the committee meeting. At this point the principal apologised to the parent. The committee did not launch disciplinary proceedings against the principal. Since the maintainer accepted our recommendation, we consider the matter closed. (K-OJOG-293/2004.)

A complainant came to us because he did not agree with the way the school treated his son. He told us that according to house rules boys should not have long hair. The parent was outraged that his son became the target of several attacks in school because of his long hair. According to him the school said that men with long hair have homosexual orientation and this is why they do not tolerate such hairstyles in school. The parent complained that because of his hair his son is discriminated against, for example he is not allowed to play music at the freshman ball.

The principal admitted that the house rules and code of ethics state: "The appearance of students should be clean and well-kept, they should avoid conspicuous clothing and hairstyles (dyed hair for girls, long hair for boys), as well as wearing make-up and jewellery." He also added that the student is not suffering any disadvantages in the present due to his long hair and this was also the case in the past, since adherence to the "Code of Ethics" is recommended but not compulsory. Hi also informed us that the student's participation at the freshman ball was not at all restricted, the task of organising the event was assigned to a class and they decided to hire a disc jockey.

Pursuant to Paragraph (7) of Article 40 of the Public Education Act, the house rules determine-beyond meeting educational requirements-how the student rights and obligations set out in the Public Education Act and statutes can be exercised and implemented. House rules also determine student work schedule, the order of in-class and extra curricular activities, the use of school areas and equipment, as well as prohibited behaviour at out-of-school events organised by the school related to the implementation of the teaching programme. These regulations, however, can only refine the rights and obligations specified by the statutes and adjust them to local circumstances, but they cannot have opposite content. This means that house rules cannot determine obligations that are not specified in statutes. On the other hand, it is important to see that pursuant to the text of the Public Education Act, adherence to the provisions of house rules is compulsory for students. These regulations may not contain rules that are not compulsory, not just because the Public Education Act does not allow this, but also because this would deceive students. Students have every right to think that every section of house rules is compulsory for them. The copy of the house rules in our possession also tells us that it contains no reference at all to the fact that adherence to the Code of Ethics is recommended, but not compulsory. We acquired this information from the principal's letter.

This is the reason why we recommended that the house rules only specify provisions that are compulsory for students. Naturally, this does not mean that the school cannot prepare a separate Code of Ethics, but if this does happen then everyone should be informed that adherence to this Code is not compulsory. At the same time this also means that students cannot suffer disadvantages simply for not adhering to the Code. We have requested that in the future the above be taken into account when preparing or amending house rules. (K-OJOG-335/2004.)

A teacher came to us with the following problem. Teachers started thinking in terms of outdoor environmental education, whether it would be possible to ask for a certain sum out of every student's pocket money in order to finance further programmes for the children. It is our position that any amount collected by teachers in order to finance programmes still belongs to the children. Naturally these funds must be spent on the children during these programmes. Any such funds can only be collected with the voluntary approval of the owners. In this case the owners are minors and legally they are represented by their parents. This means that if the school or a teacher wishes to organise optional activities and a financial contribution is necessary in order to implement this, then they need to notify the parents. If the parents approve, then the money can be collected and spent on the pre-determined goal. However, it is important to keep in mind that these are optional activities, and approval by parents is voluntary and as such cannot be forced. (K-OJOG-508/2004.)

A teacher came to us and requested information on whether he is obligated to provide data to a court in connection with a student, and if yes what kind of data is he obligated to disclose.. During the divorce case of the parents, the court wanted to ask the following questions of the child: What is the child's relationship with the teachers and the classmates like? Does the child's behaviour reflect the quarrels of the parents? Does the child ever talk about which parent he would like to live with? Is the teacher aware of the frequent disputes between the parents?

We have informed the teacher regarding the above quoted provisions of the Public Education Act and the Pp, which clearly state that he can refuse giving his testimony with regard to questions about issues, with respect to which he is bound by confidentiality obligations. (K-OJOG-892/2004.)

In a letter sent our office, a school principal asked whether privacy rights are violated if school teachers also have access to the results of examinations performed in kindergarten with a diagnostic development examination system.

Annex 2 of the Public Education Act, after dash three of Point 2 of the chapter titled "Data of Children and Students", stipulates that data concerning kindergarten development and the development necessary for going to school can be sent to the school-for purposes set out in the Public Education Act. In the same Annex, sentence two of Point 2 of the chapter titled "Data Management in Public Education Institutions", states that the public education institution is allowed to manage the child's personal data for educational purposes (with respect to data protection the forwarding of data classifies as data management) .

Based on the above, we have determined that the kindergarten can lawfully forward data concerning kindergarten development to the school for educational purposes. (K-OJOG-949/2004.)

A teacher came to us with the following problem. He took several pictures at school events. These pictures show students and teachers as well. Many students requested copies of these pictures, and the teacher thought it would be much simpler to upload them to a school website, thereby making them accessible to all. One of the questions of the teacher was whether he can upload the photos without authorisation by those concerned.

Act LXIII of 1992 on the Protection of Personal Data and the Disclosure of Data of Public Interest (hereinafter referred to as: Data Protection Act), in Point 1 of Article 2 states that personal data is any data which can be associated with a particular natural person (hereinafter referred to as: person concerned), and the conclusion which can be drawn from the data, relating to the person concerned. Personal data keep their above defined quality in the course of data management until their connection with the person concerned can be restored. A person is considered particularly identifiable if he or she can be-directly or indirectly-identified through name, identifying sign, or one or several factors typical of physical, mental, economical, cultural or social identity.

In accordance with Point 9 of Article 2 of the Data Protection Act, data handling is any activity or number of activities-irrespective of the procedure applied-regarding personal data, e.g. recording, storage, processing, organisation, modification, utilization, forwarding, publication, merging, deletion and destruction of personal data (including forwarding and publication), as well as the prevention of further use. The making of voice recordings and images, taking photographs, and obtaining physical characteristics that can be used to determine identity (e.g. finger or palm prints, DNA samples, retina scans) all qualify as data handling.

Based on the above it is clear that the photographs-if the persons in the pictures are recognisable and identifiable-contain personal data, therefore their publication or disclosure qualifies as data handling. In accordance with Paragraph (1) of Article 3 of the Data Protection Act, personal data may be handled if the person concerned agrees thereto or if it is ordered by an Act or a local municipality decree on the basis of the authorisation of an Act, within the sphere defined therein. Since in this case there is no legal authorisation, this means that in order to post the photos on the site, the teacher would have to obtain authorisation from all persons concerned. In the case of incapacitated minors (under 14 years old) concerned, it would be necessary to obtain the authorisation a legal representative; while in the case of concerned minors with limited capability (14-18 years old) it would be necessary to obtain the authorisation a legal representative and the minor in question. The authorisation may be of a general nature, could refer to one event (e.g. costume ball, class trip). However, it is important to take into account that the authorisation is in effect until revoked, which means that if somebody, whose photo is uploaded to the website after a general authorisation, revokes this authorisation with respect to certain photograph, then this photograph must be immediately deleted on request.

Besides the Data Protection Act, Paragraph (1) of Article 80 of Act IV of 1959 on the Civil Code also contains relevant provisions, which stipulate that any misuse of the likeness or voice recording of another person shall be deemed a violation of inherent rights. (K-OJOG-391/2004.)