The Office received a complaint from a student who had applied for the omission of a year, but the head of the institution did not approve the suspension of student status. Pursuant to Paragraph (1) of Article 28 of the Higher Education Act, the student status may be suspended for a period of altogether four terms in the manner defined in the institution's regulations. This period may be prolonged by two terms in duly justified cases, but may not exceed the duration of the training programme. The institution's Rules for Studies and Examinations detailed this statutory provision. In accordance with these rules, students who have enrolled for a given term may request that they fulfil academic obligations at a later date before the last day of the term or before starting taking the obligatory examinations, should the latter fall on an earlier date. An authorisation to omit a year may be granted when a student is unable to fulfil their academic obligations through no fault of their own or in the case of any other reasonable circumstances. It follows from the above that decision makers make equitable decisions based on the institutional rules developed on the basis of the statutory provisions. Decision makers act at their own discretion and they are not required to authorise omission in all cases, including those where students present serious reasons. By definition, in decisions made on the principle of equity the decision maker makes a judgement at his own discretion. Decision makers are not required to justify their decisions. Decision makers can freely consider the reasons, and may make a decision based on their subjective beliefs without being bound by requirements. Based on the foregoing, the Office has established that the institution did not violate any right by rejecting the student's request. (KOJOG-103/2002.)

A complaint was filed by a person who was granted admission to a university, but did not enrol and submitted a request for postponing a year. The request was rejected, which the complainant found injurious. The Office established that following her successful entrance examination, the complainant was entitled to enrol for courses at the institution and - pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Article 7 of the Higher Education Act - to become a student of the institution. As the person filing the complaint failed to enrol for courses, her name was deleted from the list of persons admitted to the institution. In view of the above, the person filing the complaint did not become a student of the institution. Article 28 of the Higher Education Act and the RSE, however, only allows enrolled students to omit a year or to suspend student status. The RSE does not provide for postponing a year as such. This means that the RSE does not allow individuals who have been granted admission to the faculty to postpone the first enrolment, which leads to student status, to a later academic year not following directly the successful entrance examination. Those who have been granted admission must first enrol for courses in the term following the successful entrance examination to become students of the institutions, and only following that do they become able to postpone the start of their studies or to suspend their studies. In view of the above, the Office has established that the institution did not violate educational rights by rejecting the student's request for postponing a year. (K-OJOG-276/2002.)

A student found it injurious that, invoking the course specific requirements whereby students have an opportunity to make up for the unfulfilled requirements or prove improvement for one course only, he was not allowed to make up for unaccomplished tasks and his course was not recognised as completed in that term. The regulations require the rules for making up for unaccomplished tasks to be laid down in the specific requirements of the various courses. The lecturer responsible for the course must fix at least one date when students can sit for the missed written examinations. The document containing the requirements for the course did not contain the above provisions. The course specific requirements did not provide for making up for unaccomplished tasks or missed written examinations, and they did not include any rules for restricting the number of such opportunities. In view of the foregoing the Office has established that the institution's opinion whereby students have an opportunity to make up for the unfulfilled requirements or prove improvement for one course only is not substantiated. As the student in question failed to meet the requirements of the course for other reasons, the issue of restricting the opportunities for demonstrating improvement did not affect the recognition of the term. Therefore, the Office did not file any initiatives in the student's case. It did initiative however that, in the future, the higher education institution should draw up the course specific requirements in keeping with the regulations and in those requirements provide for the rules for making up unaccomplished tasks in accordance with the provisions of the RSE. (K-OJOG-67/2002.)

A student found it injurious that she could not start her examination due to absence from a study trip, although she met the course specific requirements published in writing. The student filed several complaints concerning the procedure relating to the certification of the absence and also complained about the conditions for making up for the study trip. The Office has established that the decisions concerning the prescription of a study trip, the method of providing a certificate of the absence and the conditions for making up for the missed trip were made in accordance with the regulation. It has also been established though that, based on the RSE, students must be informed of the study trip forming part of the course specific requirements, the method and time of providing a certificate of absence, the consequences of absence and the conditions for making up the missed trip at the beginning of the term, and such information must appear on the notice boards of the department. The written requirements of this course did not include the above mentioned information. In view of this, considering that the student filing the complaint is continuing her studies in another degree programme, the Office filed an initiative whereby, in the future, students will be informed of the course specific requirements in accordance with the requirements of the RSE, and such information will contain all course specific requirements as well as provisions for providing a certificate of absence, the consequences of absence and the conditions for making up whatever is missed. The initiative has been accepted. (K-OJOG-27/2002.)

A complaint was filed by a student who commenced her PhD studies on 1 January 1998. The PhD regulations in force at that time did not require an obligatory preliminary workshop discussion. The student found it injurious that the effective PhD regulations, which were adopted and entered into force on 5 September 2001, included such a requirement, and it was applicable for those who had begun their PhD studies before the new regulations were adopted. The student indicated that she had not started the doctoral degree award procedure yet. As the procedure was not under way at the time of the new regulation's entry into force, the principle prohibiting retrospective regulation was not violated in this case. In what followed, the Office investigated whether a preparatory period was ensured prior to the adoption of the new regulations. The regulations which were in force earlier required a preliminary, favourable assessment of the content of the thesis as a prerequisite of the public discussion of the thesis. The new regulations require a workshop discussion of the thesis prior to the public discussion. The aim of the workshop discussion is to decide whether the thesis is fit for a public discussion, which is similar to the purpose of the preliminary assessment of its content. The organisation of the workshop discussion is the responsibility of the candidate's tutor. The workshop discussion is similar to the practice existing in the procedure for the doctoral degree award earlier on. Therefore, its introduction constitutes a change where candidates who have not started the award procedure yet have enough time for adaptation and preparation for the fulfilment of the new obligation, even if the rule introducing the workshop discussion enters into force on the day of its proclamation. According to our position, the requirement of allowing enough time for preparation had not been prejudiced in this case, therefore the Office cannot establish the infringement of educational rights. (K-OJOG-80/2002.)

A student complained about an amendment to the RSE introducing changes in the rules for determining the assessment appearing in the awarded degree. The changes were applicable to students in the last year of their studies. Earlier, the RSE provided for the determination of the level of the awarded degree in the following manner: "The assessment appearing in the awarded degree shall be determined based on the mean of the results of the final examination, the grade given for the thesis and the mean of the grades obtained in course unit examinations." On 14 February 2001 new RSE were adopted with provisions to be applied as of the second term of the academic year 2001-2002. The new RSE contain the following provision: "The assessment appearing in the awarded degree shall be determined based on the mean of the grades given for the courses covered by the final examination and the grade given for the thesis and the mean of the grades obtained in course unit examinations."

Neither the Higher Education Act, nor the Government Decree on the qualification requirements of the degree programme concerned, contain any rules on how to determine the assessment appearing in an awarded degree. Legislation entrusts the institution with the regulation of this issue. At the same time the RSE, i.e. the norms within the institution, are subject to the general principle prohibiting regulation with retrospective effect, and may not diminish any right existing before the time of establishing the norms in question or impose new obligations or increase existing obligations with a retrospective effect. Therefore, the Office looked at whether the provisions of the new regulation comply with this principle. It has been established that, as a result of the new regulations, students would have had to perform differently in past examinations in order to obtain the same degree in the present, because the grades obtained in past examinations are taken into account with a changed weighting for the assessment appearing in the awarded degree. A grade having a negative impact on the assessment appearing in the degree with an increased weighting will in fact increase the obligations imposed before the adoption of the new regulation. A grade having a positive impact on the assessment appearing in the degree with a reduced weighting will in fact diminish the rights earned before the adoption of the new regulation. Consequently, if the rules for determining the assessment appearing in the degree, i.e. the impact of grades obtained earlier on, changes, as a result of introducing a new regulation, to the detriment of students, the new regulation will be in conflict with the prohibition of retrospective regulation, and will constitute an infringement of rights. Considering that the prohibition of retrospective regulation only applies to amendments that are detrimental to students, those students who can benefit from the new rules for determining the assessment appearing in the degree will not suffer any infringement of rights. In view of the foregoing, the Office proposed an initiative whereby the higher education institution can amend the rules for determining the assessment appearing in the degree in such a manner that will comply with the general principle prohibiting retrospective regulation. Furthermore, the Office filed an initiative whereby the institution will determine the assessment appearing in the degree in accordance with the old provisions in the case of those students for whom the new rules are detrimental. The initiative has been accepted. (K-OJOG-141/2002.)

In case K-OJOG-67/2002, which has already been mentioned above, a student complained about her doctor's certificate not being accepted, because it failed to specify the health problem. According to the institution, the student presented the certificate after the deadline. The certificate was rejected, because it was presented late. Therefore, the Office did not establish the violation of rights in this issue. However, the head of the department rejecting the doctor's certificate also mentioned that the document should have specified the health problem. On the subject of specifying health problems in doctor's certificates, the Office has established the following: Pursuant to Article 117 of the Higher Education Act and its Annex 2, higher education institutions may handle students' personal data in relation to the student status, including the certification of absence. There is a principle, though, laid down in Article 5 of the Data Protection Act, which is applicable to the handling of personal data by higher education institutions. In accordance with this principle, 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. Personal data must be handled in compliance with this principle at all stages. Furthermore, the handling of personal data must be restricted to those personal data that are indispensable and appropriate for attaining the objective of data handling. The handling of personal data may not exceed the extent and period as is necessary for attaining the said objective. As the credibility of a doctor's certificate can be judged without the health problem being specified in the certificate, and since the same applies to making the decision about accepting the doctor's certificate, requiring the specification of the health problem would be against the principle that the use of personal data must always have a specific purpose. In view of this, the Office proposed an initiative whereby the institution will not require students to present doctor's certificates specifying health problems and will not make the acceptability of a doctor's certificate subject to that in the future. The institution has accepted the initiative. (K-OJOG-67/2002.)

A student complained about not having access to his examination paper or a copy thereof in spite of repeated requests. The institution said that the complainant had had a chance to have a look at the examination papers, but the actual issuing of papers was not deemed useful by the institution. The Office had already established in its earlier practice that papers and tests written by a student should be treated the same way as the personal data of the student concerned, and as such, they are the possession of the student. As the party handling the personal data, the higher education institution must provide written information thereof in accordance with Articles 12-13 of the Data Protection Act. Based on the visual inspection of the paper or test, students may file requests for a revision of correction with a view to revealing mistakes. In order to make sure that such requests are formulated after due preparation, having the necessary instruments and time required for writing the request, the visual inspection cannot be restricted to the study of the paper or test - and the way it was corrected - at a place and time determined by the institution. The visual inspection must include the possession of the paper, meaning the provision of a copy thereof. Based on the foregoing, the Office has established that the college violated the student's rights by refusing to issue a copy of the paper on the student's request. In view of this, the Office has contacted the head of the institution with the initiative to issue copies of all of the requested tests and papers for the student without delay. Furthermore, the Office has filed an initiative whereby, in the future, the college will issue copies of papers and tests to students upon request to ensure full access thereto.

Based on the initiative, the college incorporated the following provision into its Rules for Studies and Examinations: "Following the assessment of written assignments specified in the course specific requirements, students filing a request within 15 days after the publication of the assessments may receive a copy of the requested and assessed document (examination paper, in-class test or paper, rapid test, etc.) from the person responsible for the course. Students must pay a charge for the requested copies. The person responsible for the course must record the issue/receipt of the document." The Office did not find the above provision fully in line with the invoked provisions of the Data Protection Act. The law does not allow the party handling the data to restrict the time available for exercising the right to information; therefore the RSE may not restrict that, either. In addition, pursuant to Section a) of Paragraph (1) of Article 11 of the Data Protection Act, students' right to request information about their personal data must not be restricted to written information. Furthermore, pursuant to Paragraph (3) of Article 12 of the same Act, the provided information must be free for those who have not filed a request for the same information to the party handling the data during the same year. A charge for the information is only lawful in other cases. In view of the above, the Office requested the institution to take all action necessary to ensure that the provision incorporated in the Rules for Studies and Examinations based on the earlier initiative is amended to comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Act. All of the initiatives have been fully accepted regarding the matter. (K-OJOG-368/2002.)

A student complained that the section of the regulations whereby all students are entitled to receive information about the academic issues concerning them had not been observed in his case. Our view is that this student right creates a twofold obligation on the part of the institution. On the one hand, the institution is expected to publish certain information and documents that are either relevant for many students or are important for some other reason without any special request. On the other hand, the institution must give relevant replies to the queries received from students. The quoted provision does not imply that the institution must provide information about a student's rights and obligations without the student's specific request in individual cases. Therefore the Office has not established the infringement of any right in this case. (K-OJOG-207/2002.)

Students turned to the Office with the complaint that their institution made nine courses obligatory without informing students thereof in advance and in spite of the fact that the courses were not listed in the training plans and the curricula of the four terms. The Office has established that the courses are obligatory for students pursuant to the Rules for Studies and Examinations. In accordance with Section d) of Paragraph (2) of Article 64 of the Higher Education Act, higher education institutions may lawfully adopt such provisions and impose such obligations on students by virtue of their autonomy. The RSE may establish new obligations for students, which is not affected by the fact that the obligations in question are not published in any other information issued by the institution. Nevertheless, it should be noted that whilst the RSE are available and accessible for all students, any contradiction between the information issued by the institution and the RSE may lead to the infringement of educational rights. The same applies to obligations that are not published in a clear manner. The institution has promised to include the content of the RSE in the publications circulated among students in the future in order to avoid any misunderstanding. Thus the institution has rectified the infringement on its own authority, and the Office has not formulated any initiative in the matter. (K-OJOG-234/2002.)