Two parents turned to the Office with an objection to the disciplinary proceeding conducted against their children, claiming that the discontinuation of the pupil status of their children was unlawful. The relevant pupils attended a vocational school in Budapest, where a charity box was broken open and the contents removed. The school's management, based on indirect evidence, held the two pupils responsible and started a disciplinary proceeding in their case.

From the minutes sent to the Office we established that of the methods of obtaining evidence, the disciplinary hearing used the testimonies of the pupils and witnesses in an attempt to clarify the facts of the case. The witnesses heard could only confirm in their testimony that the pupils subjected to the proceeding were close to the charity box during the relevant period of time. They could not confirm, however, that the pupils broke open the box. At the same time, the affected pupils unanimously stated that they did not do it. Consequently, not a single piece of information with the power of evidence was heard which would have supported the theory that the act for which the disciplinary proceeding was initiated was committed by these pupils. The disciplinary committee processing the case, however, found that the transgression was proved. As a disciplinary sanction, it banned the pupils from continuation of their studies in the relevant year, and suspended the enforcement of the sanction until the end of the academic year. The resolution also stated that should the pupils commit another disciplinary transgression during the period of suspension, the resolution takes effect.

As the pupils committed an act entailing a disciplinary proceeding in a few days, the institution again initiated a disciplinary proceeding against them. As a result, the disciplinary penalty inflicted earlier became effective, and the school discontinued the pupil status of the two pupils. The institution should have followed the relevant legal provision in this case as well, and should have established the disciplinary liability of the affected pupils through a lawful disciplinary proceeding. The institution, however, did not meet its notification and information obligations concerning the hearing. The infringement of procedural rules is not affected by the fact that the parents attended the hearing. The minutes of the disciplinary hearing were again unsuitable to establish what evidence there was to prove that the pupils had committed the disciplinary transgressions with which they were charged, or the disciplinary sanction which was applied.

The affected parties made available to us the notification sent to them by the school on the basis of the two disciplinary hearings, in which they were informed of the disciplinary sanction. The letters sent by the school, however, failed to satisfy the legal provision on the form of the disciplinary resolution: for example, it did not indicate the right to appeal, and did not describe the evidence.

In the course of the disciplinary proceeding, both pupils were banned from continuing their studies in the academic year, and then their pupil status was discontinued. The sanction of banning the continuation of studies in the specific school, on the one hand, and the sanction of expulsion from the school, on the other, are not the same. Pursuant to Paragraph (4) of Article 75 of the Public Education Act, a pupil status is only discontinued on the day when the disciplinary resolution on expulsion from the school takes effect. Under the law, however, banning of continuation of studies in the specific school does not entail the sanction of discontinuation of pupil status.

From the information made available to us, we established that in the first disciplinary proceeding, the disciplinary board could not prove that the transgression was committed by the pupils against whom the procedure was started, and that, therefore, the disciplinary sanction was inflicted unlawfully. We also established that the second disciplinary proceeding took place in a manner which constituted an infringement of procedural regulations, thereby violating the educational rights of the pupils in question. In our opinion, the disciplinary resolution also did not meet the relevant legal regulations. For example, it did not indicate the right of appeal. We established that the pupil status of the two pupils was discontinued in a manner which constituted a violation of the provisions of the Public Education Act. Consequently, we initiated with the head of the institution that the necessary steps be taken to restore the pupil status of the pupils concerned. We also initiated that in the future, the institution act in accordance with the relevant legislation in carrying out any disciplinary proceedings. The principal did not accept our initiative. Therefore, we turned to the maintaining authority of the institution with the recommendation that in the framework of an inquiry to verify conformity with the law, the management start an inquiry into the lawfulness of the disciplinary proceeding against the two pupils, with regard to the aspects described above.

The management also found the manner in which the two proceedings were carried out contrary to the law, and thus requested the head of the institution to restore conformity with the law. The head of the institution notified the Office in a letter that the pupil status of the pupils affected was restored in October 2002. (KOJOG-131/2002.)

A parent claimed in his complaint that the disciplinary proceeding against his child was unjustified. He explained that several pupils, including his child, were throwing paper balls during class. He was of the opinion that this act is not such a serious transgression which would justify a disciplinary proceeding. We informed the parent that a disciplinary proceeding may be started when a pupil culpably and seriously fails in his duties. The graveness of the actions of the pupil, however, is determined by the school, in accordance with its code of behaviour set forth in the school's rules of operation and organisation. In our inquiry, we established that the objected proceeding took place in conformity with the legal provisions, and therefore the educational rights of the complainant's child were not impaired. (K-OJOG-319/2002.)