OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS

One of the complaints contained a question about the method the various higher education institutions use to calculate scores. The complainant was informed that the Admission Decree did not specify which subjects should be taken into account for calculating the score for secondary school attainment in the admission procedure, and different higher education institutions may have different score calculation methods. To this end, the Admission Guidelines describes the principles of score calculation and ranking for each degree programme or type of training (full time or part-time studies, correspondence courses, distance learning, etc.) offered by the various institutions. (K-OJOG-109/2002.)

A parent turned to the Office with the observation that, shortly before the entrance examinations, her child did not know what subjects the examination would cover. The parent was informed that, pursuant to Section c) of Paragraph (4) of Article 2 of the Admission Decree, higher education institutions publish their admission requirements for their various degree programmes in the Admission Guidelines. In accordance with Paragraph (4) of Article 9, the Guidelines specify the subjects the entrance examinations for the various degree programmes cover. Pursuant to Paragraph (12) of the same Article, the requirements for the written and oral examinations in these subjects must be published in the Admission Guidelines at least two years prior to their introduction. Therefore, higher education institutions may only impose requirements that were published in the Admission Guidelines over the previous years. (K-OJOG-500/2002.)

The Minister of Education has accepted the observations made in our procedure carried out last year, and promised to take corrective action. Accordingly, the Admission Guidelines for 2002 contain a few changes, but in some cases no corrections have been made. For example, due to the lack of applicable statutory provisions, the guidelines for both 2001 and 2002 claim that, if the application forms are completed differently, the information provided on Form A shall prevail. In both years, the Admission Guidelines gave an incorrect account of the cases in which foreign citizens may participate in state-financed training at Hungarian higher education institutions. The description of the benefits relating to the degree programme leading to a second teacher's degree was also incorrect in both 2001 and 2002.

The Office has made the following observations on the content of the Admission Guidelines for 2002. The publication defines the cross-term and the summer admission procedure as a special admission procedure, and establishes special rules for them - without any authorisation granted by the law. The Guidelines establish deadlines for submitting the certificates accompanying the application forms in a manner which is independent of the Admission Decree. According to the Guidelines, it is not possible to recover any procedural charges paid by mistake, which is against the law. The practice whereby the entrance examination requirements of the individual institutions are published in "Exercises and Requirements for the Entrance Examination" instead of the Admission Guidelines is not in accordance with the law, either.

One of the complaints included the question whether a certificate of secondary education awarded abroad enables the bearer to apply for admission to a higher education institution in Hungary. The Office informed the person filing the inquiry that, pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Article 4 of Act C of 2001 on the recognition of diplomas and certificates awarded abroad, it falls within the competence of the individual educational institution where the applicant wishes to continue his or her studies whether it recognises the qualification certified by a diploma or certificate awarded abroad for the purpose of studies in the educational institution in question. Therefore, the person filing the query should present the certificate to the selected Hungarian higher education institution in order to have the school attainment required for admission recognised. (K-OJOG-106/2002.)

A complainant found it injurious that a higher education institution specified a certain qualification as a requirement for admission to a degree programme. No infringement upon rights was established in this matter, as the institution only exercised its right established by the law when it specified the above requirement for admission. (K-OJOG-395/2002.)

The Office received a query whether someone may repeat an entrance examination missed due to hospital treatment. The person filing the query was informed that, in accordance with Paragraph (18) of Article 9 of the Admission Decree, higher education institutions are not obliged to set additional dates for examinations besides the ones that have been set and published in advance. (K-OJOG-309/2002.)

Some complainants found it injurious that they were not provided the full 180 minutes due at the written examination. One of them also complained about the organisers not ensuring an undisturbed atmosphere during the examination - mobile phones rang during the examination and there were not enough sheets of paper for working on the exercises. The Office contacted the head of OFI, the organisation responsible for organising the examination, who arranged an investigation of the matters, but could not establish any violation of rules. Therefore, the matters had to be closed due to the lack of available proof. (K-OJOG-285/2002., K-OJOG-358/2002.)

A person filing a complaint had applied for a double degree programme. The Admission Guidelines and the "General Information" sent by the institution informed the applicant that those who score less than 15 points during the written examination may not take part in the oral examination. The General Information made it clear that the applicants were given dates for the oral examination before the written examinations took place, and everybody was invited to sit for the oral examination, including those who had scored less than 15 points and could not take the oral part. As the complainant scored 10 points in both subjects at the written examinations, he did not think he could take part in the oral examination. Later it turned out by accident that he was allowed to do so. He sat for the examination in one subject and was informed that he could take the examination in the other subject at a later date, of which he would be notified. According to the information the institution gave, this happened because many applicants were in a similar situation. After all that, the complainant did not receive any notice of the date of the later examination. He was informed, however, that he was not admitted based on his score.

In the letter sent to the Office, the institution admitted dealing with the 15-point rule only after the start of the oral examinations. This means that the institution realised only at that time that, in the case of applications for double degree programmes, it was not clear whether the 15 point limit should be interpreted as the accumulated score of the written examinations in both subjects, or 15 points should be scored in both subjects separately. In the letter sent to the complainant, the institution claimed that, in the initial days of the oral examinations, it was not clear how many points applicants for double degree programmes should score at the written examinations in order to be allowed to sit for the oral examination. On the basis of all this, it can be established that the complainant had a reason to believe, on the basis of the Admission Guidelines and the General Information, that he was not entitled to sit for the oral examination.

The institution did not make any effort to solve the situation caused by the above publication and the form. The default was aggravated by the fact that the institution was aware of the existence of the problem, as well as the fact that some applicants may miss the entrance examination due to incorrect or incomplete information. The procedure is especially injurious, because the applicants were informed of their entrance examination results and admission opportunities by the institution. In such case, the institution's occasional failure will make the applicants defenceless. Without information, they are clearly unable to assert their rights. In this case, the behaviour of the institution constituted a deception of the complainant, who could not sit for the oral examination for this reason, although he would have been entitled to do so.

After the end of the admission procedure, applicants without a duly obtained score cannot be admitted. The institution can neither recognise the score from the previous year, nor provide an additional opportunity to sit for the examination. Thus, the complainant could not be admitted for the academic year of 2002-2003. Therefore, the Office proposed an initiative for the future whereby the institution will clearly specify the rules for the admission procedure, both in the Admission Guidelines and the forms issued by the faculty. The institution has accepted the initiative. (K-OJOG-443/2002.)

The Office received a complaint from a person whose score obtained at the entrance examination of an institution indicated as third choice was not taken into account by the institution indicated as first choice when deciding about admission, although it had promised to do so in the Admission Guidelines.

The Office contacted the institution, which said in connection with the matter that the computer based implementation of the admission process does not allow an institution listed by the applicant as a higher priority choice to recognise the entrance examination of an institution which the applicant listed as a lower priority choice. The institution invoked Paragraph (5) of Article 5 of the Admission Decree, which stipulates that those who apply for admission to different degree programmes with the same examination subjects must sit for the written examination at the institution requiring such an examination whose name comes first in the list of the applicant's priorities. This means that an examination can only berecognised in a "top down" manner.

The institutions indicated by the person filing the complaint as first and second choices did not organise entrance examinations, and made decisions about admission based on the score calculated on the basis of secondary school performance. Therefore, the complainant could sit for an entrance examination at the institution selected as third choice only.

In this matter, the Office established that the institution against which the complaint was filed committed itself by virtue of its autonomy and its right provided for in Section c) of Paragraph (2) of Article 64 of the Higher Education Act to grant an advantage to applicants by recognising the scores obtained at other institutions, if that was beneficial for the applicant. The institution did not limit this treatment to those applicants who sit for the entrance examination forming the basis of the offered advantage at an institution listed as a higher priority choice, although it could have done that. Higher education institutions are not required to provide advantages of this kind. Those that do so, however, are bound by the information they provide and they are required to act accordingly. This is not affected by the rule laid down in Paragraph (5) of Article 5 of the Admission Decree. The provision of the law and the advertised treatment are not related to each other, for the above mentioned section of the law only provides for the location where the applicant must sit the examination. The complainant met this provision by sitting for the examination at the institution listed as third choice, especially because the complainant did not have an opportunity to sit for an examination at the other two institutions, as they did not organise entrance examinations. However, as has been mentioned earlier, institutions can grant special treatment in the admission process independent of this rule, on a different legal basis. The obligations of an institution are not affected by the fact that the computer-based implementation of the admission process does not support the recognition of an examination passed in the manner in question. Higher education institutions are bound by the information they publish in the Admission Guidelines concerning the special treatment and exemptions they grant. The obligations thus created are independent of the operating principles of the register maintained by an external body, the OFI. OFI performs administrative tasks supporting the implementation of the admission process. It does not have any decision-making power, therefore it cannot substantially influence admission.

In view of the above, the Office proposed an initiative whereby the institution against which the complaint was filed will adopt a decision on taking into account the results of the entrance examination the person filing the complaint sat for at the institution indicated as third choice. The institution has accepted the initiative. (K-OJOG-429/2002.)

A complaint was filed by a person who had been granted admission by an institution to a fee-based tuition programme, as the person in question did not have enough points to be admitted to a state-financed programme. The person filing the complaint claimed that she could have complied with the requirements of the statefinanced programme, as she has a certificate which gives entitlement to bonus points. However, she failed to send a copy of that certificate to the institution, because she did not know that it would earn her bonus points.

In accordance with Section c) of Paragraph (1) of Article 5 of the Admission Decree, the application forms must be accompanied by copies of the certificates which give entitlement to bonus points. For the calculation of the final score, institutions may not take into consideration any certificates submitted later, with the exception of documents submitted upon request as additional documents. The matter has been closed due to the lack of infringement of any lawful rights. (K-OJOG-570/2002.)

A foreign citizen with immigrant status applied for a state-financed programme of a Hungarian higher education institution. In application form B, he ticked the last one of the three options under the heading "nationality" (the three options are: Hungarian / foreigner / foreigner with permanent residence permit.)¹ The institution, however, admitted the complainant to a tuition-fee programme.

Under Section d) of Paragraph (2) of Article 3 of Government Decree 120/2000. (VII. 7.) on the financing of higher education institutions from capitation grants for training and maintenance, and with regard to Section b) of Paragraph (1), foreign citizens with a student status who are participating in full-time initial training and have been admitted to a programme within the state-financed student quota and are subject to the same treatment as students with Hungarian nationality shall be considered on the basis of the law state-financed students of higher education institutions. Pursuant to Paragraph (3) of Article 14 of Government Decree 157/2001 (IX. 12.) on certain issues relating to the tertiary level studies of foreign citizens in Hungary and of Hungarians abroad, for the purposes of the Higher Education Act and the implementation decrees thereof, immigrants and foreigners with a refugee certificate must be considered as having the same legal status as Hungarian citizens as of the date of issue of the Hungarian identification card or refugee certificate.

According to the position of the institution, the complainant ticked the status "foreigner with permanent residence permit" in application form B, and OFI made a mistake during the recording of data and the calculation of the score by treating the applicant as a simple foreign citizen instead of a foreign citizen with a permanent residence permit, who should receive the same treatment as a Hungarian citizen. Pursuant to Section a) of Paragraph (2) of Article 4 of the Admission Decree, applicants must indicate in the application form which higher education institution(s), faculty (faculties), degree programme(s), degree programme group(s), accredited tertiary level vocational training(s), training type(s) they are applying for. They should also indicate whether they are applying for a state-financed or a tuition-fee programme or both. Consequently, higher education institutions may not depart from the options indicated by the applicants, as they are bound by the applicants' choices. Institutions may only decide whether an applicant can be admitted to the indicated programme or not. The form B submitted to the institution by the person filing the complaint contained an application for a state-financed programme. On these grounds - considering that the complainant had enough points to be admitted to a state-financed programme - the institution must admit the complainant to a state-financed programme.

The fact that it was essentially OFI that made the mistake during the recording of the data does not affect this. Based on the information in the form B received by the institution, it should have been aware that the applicant had applied for a statefinanced programme and that he was eligible for it.

In view of the above, the Office has proposed an initiative whereby the head of the institution will adopt a decision on the admission or transfer of the person filing the complaint to a state-financed programme and refund the tuition fee already paid. The institution has accepted the initiative. (K-OJOG-415/2002.)

A person filing a complaint was informed by an institution that her application for admission had been rejected. The reasons for the decision, i.e. the score attained by the applicant, however, were not communicated. The person filing the complaint lodged an appeal against the decision, but did not receive any response. Likewise, no response was given to her inquiry sent to the institution later. Following that, she contacted our Office, which contacted the institution. As a result, the head of the institution conducted an investigation and found that the score of the person filing the complaint had been calculated incorrectly. Had it been calculated correctly, she would have been admitted. The institution admitted the mistake and offered a compromise for the person filing the complaint whereby she was admitted, could start her studies and was given an opportunity to make up for the studies she was compelled to miss. The person filing the complaint accepted the offer. Thus the institution rectified the infringement of rights within the scope of its own authority. (K-OJOG-592/2002.)

A person filing a query was granted admission to a higher education institution, but then decided to attend another institution. The Office informed him that, pursuant to the applicable legislation on admission to higher education, applicants may only be admitted to institutions they have applied for, using the forms intended for this purpose and by observing the rules for the admission procedure. Institutions other than the ones indicated in the application form may not grant admission. However, after being granted admission, students of higher education institutions may apply for a transfer to another higher education institution in accordance with the receiving institution's rules for transfer. Institutions are not obliged to accept applications for transfer, and some institutions may not allow any. Detailed information on this subject is available from the target institution, in particular from its regulations. (KOJOG-412/2002., K-OJOG-497/2002.)