The Office informed those students who decided, after enrolment, that they did not wish to participate in a given training programme and wanted to recover the tuition fees they had already paid, that institutions¹ tuition fee requirements are valid as of the date of enrolment for courses. The tuition fees already paid cannot be recovered at a later date. (K-OJOG-573/2002., K-OJOG-588/2002.)

Complainants were informed of the rules applying to the raising of the tuition fee. In accordance with Paragraph (3) of Article 22 of Gov. Decree 144/1996 (IX. 12.) on the forms of support available for students and the charges and fees payable by them, 3 the tuition fee charged by an institution may not exceed the amount established in the previous year as increased by the price index applicable for the previous year published by the Central Statistics Office. The amount of the tuition fee payable must be published within the institution in the customary manner by 31 May of the preceding academic year. (K-OJOG-8/2002., K-OJOG-74/2002.)

Those who found the tuition fee too high and wished to be granted exemption from payment received the following information from the Office: In accordance with the applicable regulations, the determination of the tuition fee is the responsibility of the individual institutions. Students who participate in training programmes not financed by the state pay tuition fees. Institutions establish the amount of the tuition fee in their own regulations, which must provide for the available grants provided by the institution, exemption from tuition fee payment and any other fees and charges payable. In accordance with these provisions, students may be exempted from the payment of the tuition fee, or part of it, only if the organisational and operational rules of the institution allow for such exemptions. (K-OJOG-119/2002., K-OJOG-591/2002.)

A student filed a complaint with the Office because she had applied for a national grant, but only received it partially, in spite of having been informed of winning the grant. The investigation carried out by the Office revealed that the complainant was not eligible in the term in question, as she had not enrolled for courses under her first initial training programme, i.e. her student status was suspended in that period. (K-OJOG-87/2002.)

The Office established that Bursa Hungarica grants are only available for students participating in state-financed training programmes, because the grant was established by the Minister of Education pursuant to the authorisation in Gov. Decree 144/1996 (XII. 17.), which is applicable to state-financed training and education only. (K-OJOG-84/2002., K-OJOG-209/2002.)

Complainants participating in distance learning programmes found it injurious that they were not entitled to any travel discounts in contrast to those who participate in full-time, part-time and correspondence programmes. They considered the relevant regulations discriminatory. Distance learning is a special form of higher education, which, due to its specific nature, is subject to rules that are different in certain respects from those applying to other forms of higher education. Students have a right to choose the form of education which is most favourable for them. Those who have chosen distance learning have chosen it together with all of its characteristics. The state may provide direct or indirect support for certain forms of education (e.g. grants are direct, while travel discounts are indirect forms of support). The exact manner of providing public support, however, may be different with the different forms of education. Providing different types of public support for different types of education and training is not discrimination. The rules of such support are dependent on the financing capacity of the state and the political will relating to the role of the state.

By providing a certain form of support, the state grants preferential treatment for a certain group. In accordance with the practice of the Constitutional Court, the state has a great deal of freedom in identifying the beneficiaries of preferential treatment, provided that the beneficiaries are not chosen in an arbitrary manner. Our position is that the choice of beneficiaries was not arbitrary in this case, as it was based on the reasonable consideration whereby the state provides different levels of support for different types of training. (K-OJOG-476/2002., K-OJOG-555/2002.)

A complainant turned to the Office because she found it injurious that the Registrar's Office of the higher education institution issued grade reports for photocopying only if students paid a special fee, although the photocopy of the grade report is necessary for applying for dormitory placement. The Office contacted the institution and was informed that the Registrar's Office may issue certificates for students, which contain their average academic results in the previous two terms. Such certificates are issued free of charge, and halls of residence accept them. With this, the institution solved the problem on its own authority. Nevertheless, the Office asked the institution to duly inform students of this new approach to prevent similar complaints in the future. (K-OJOG-186/2002.)

The problem was that the staff of the dormitory warden's office entered students' rooms without asking or informing students several times. In accordance with the rules of the house, members of staff were allowed to enter students' rooms on Wednesday afternoons.

The Office established that a dormitory room must be considered the students' private residence. Therefore, students have the constitutional right relating to the integrity of one's private residence. Naturally, exercising a right may include the waiver of the right in question, i.e. the case where one gives consent to other's access to the protected area. However, such consent must be given on a voluntary basis. In accordance with Paragraph (2) of Article 8 of the Constitution, legislators may adopt regulations to restrict the right to ensure the integrity of one's private residence.

The quoted provision of the rules of the house cannot be regarded as voluntary consent. Although students accept the provisions of the rules of the house as binding upon themselves when they move into the dormitory, the rules of the house may not allow entrance to the rooms, unless it is based on an authorisation provided by the law. In contrast to legal relationships established on a commercial basis and governed by private law, dormitory membership is governed by public law. Students living in a hall of residence use a benefit provided on the basis of eligibility. Upon moving into the dormitory, students are compelled to accept the provisions of the rules of the house (the dormitory regulations), which implies that dormitory membership is not a legal relationship based on free choice. Therefore, halls of residence may not apply autocratic solutions whereby citizens are compelled to waive an indisputable constitutional right.

In view of all this, members of staff or any other person may only enter a student's room either with the expressed and voluntary consent of the student concerned, or by virtue of an authorisation provided by the law. If the student concerned does not give his or her consent or the institution is unable to invoke a statutory authorisation, entrance will constitute an infringement of rights.

The registration of guests arriving at the dormitory gave rise to another situation involving the infringement of rights. In accordance with the rules of the house, the guest of a dormitory member must leave an ID at reception. In most cases this is the identity card.

The office established that the identity card is an official document which the person it identifies must carry all the time. The dormitory violates the law by requiring guests to leave their identity cards at reception.

The dormitory's practice of recording the names and other personal particulars of guests may lead to concerns relating to the protection of personal data. In this case, the dormitory handles the personal data of guests for a long time without any adequate purpose. Pursuant to Paragraph (1) of Article 5 of the Data Protection Act, the handling of personal data must always have a specific purpose, which is either the exercising of some right or the fulfilment of some obligation. Paragraph (2) of the same Act stipulates that the handling of personal data must be restricted to those personal data that are indispensable and appropriate for attaining the objective of data handling, and the handling of personal data may not exceed the extent and period as is necessary for attaining the said objective.

In this case the purpose of the handling of personal data is to let the dormitory know who enters its territory with a view to safeguarding its property. To this end, the dormitory may keep records of the personal data needed for the identification of those who enter. On the other hand, any data handling beyond the extent necessary for the attainment of this objective is against the law. After handling, the data must be eliminated, and the data may not be handled for a longer time than what is necessary for the dormitory to determine whether any abuse of its property has taken place.

The institution accepted the position of the Office presented during a face-to-face conciliation. It promised to act in accordance with the above in the future. (KOJOG-17/2002.)