APPLICATION/REQUÊTE N° 11655/85 Halina GLAZEWSKA v/SWEDEN Halina GLAZEWSKA c/SUÈDE DECISION of 10 October 1985 on the admissibility of the applicatio n DÉCISION du 10 octobre 1985 sur la recevabilité de la requêt e Article 2 of the First Protocol : States are not required to recognise professional status acquired abroad . Nor are they required to provide specialized higher education and, if such education exists, it may be reserved for those who can benefit most from it. Article 2 du Protocole additionnel : Les Etats n'ont pas l'obligation de reconnaître un titre de capacité professionnelle acquis à l'étranger. Ils n'ont pas non plus l'obGgation de créer un enseignement supérieur spécialisé et, si un tel enseignement existe, il peut être réservé à ceux qui peuvent en tirer le plus grand profit . THE FACTS (français : voir p. 302) The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows : The applicant is a Swedish citizen of Polish origin, born in 1939. She is resident in Gothenburg . In Poland the applicant was a doctor, specialist of the first grade in the scope of ophthalmology . In 1975 she came to Sweden with her family with the intention of continuing as a practising ophthalmologist . To begin with she worked as an ophthalmologist and then in another medical field . The applicant also studied the Swedish language. 300 On 9 February 1978 the Board for Foreign Medical Personnel of the National Board ior Health and Welfare (r,ocialstyrelsens ndmnd f&r utlkndsk medicinalpersonal, hereinafter "the Board"1 stipulated that the applicant, in order to obtain authorisation as a doctor in Sweden, had to practise for a limited period, had to pnss certain exams and had to participate in a course on Swedish medical legislation . On 14 October 1980 the Board decided that the applicant had disclosed such significant defieiencies in her medical knowledge that she would need long aud comprehensive additional education in order to be able to worlc satisfaetorily as a doctor in Sweden. Since such educalional resoumes were not available, the Board could not accept any further employment fo-r the applicant in ,Swedish health and weifare . Ttie applicant appealed against this decision to the Government, which on 26 February 1981 rejected the appeal . On 15 August 1983 the National Board of Health and Welfare, rejected a request from the applicant that she be permitted to undergo addidonal education to obtain an authorisation a;; a doctor in Sweden . The applicant's appeal against this decision was rejected by the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrdtten) cf Stocklrolm on 12 April 1984 . The applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Comt (regcringcr8tten) which on 9 Januarv 1985 refused te grant leave to appeal . 'Phe applicant thenspplied to the Supi-eme Administrative Court for a re-opening of the proceeding,, . This request was rejected on 24 April [985. COMPLAI[NTS Ttie applicart complains thai : she has been deprived of her profession as a physician and of her possibilities for further speciallsation as an ophthalmologist . She alstr submits that she is the victim of discrimination being arepresentative of a national minority . The applicant invokes Artich,s I and 14 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 . THE LAR' Ttie applicant has complained about tie fact that she has not been permitted to undergc education in order to obtain authorisation as a doctor ir Sweden . She has submitted that this refusal means that she is deprived of her profession . Thc applicant has invoked Article 2 of Protocol No . l . She has also alleged discrimination in breach of Article 14 of the Convention. 301 The Commission observes that the Convention does not oblige the Contracting States to recognise as valid in their own jurisdiction, a professional status which an individual has acquired under a foreign jurisdiction . Accordingly, the Convention does not impose on Sweden an obligation to authorise the applicant as a doctor in Sweden simply on the ground that she has such status in Poland (cf. No . 7864/77, Dec. 9.10.78, D.R. 16 p. 82, where the Commission rejected a complaint from an applicant of Romanian origin that her diploma of doctor in medicine in Bûcharest had not been recognised in Belgium withoufher having to pass an examination) . As regards the refusal to grant the applicant certain education, the Comrnission is of the opinion thàt Article 2 of Protocol No . 1 cannot be interpreted as imposing on a State an obligation to provide for higher education which is not available in the State . The Commission also recalls that it has previously held that where certain limited higher eduation facilities are available, the State is entitled to restrict access thereto to those students who can benefit the most from the courses offered in view of the academic level they have attained (see No . 8844/80, Dec. 9.12.80, D.R. 23 p. 228). As regards the applicant's remaining complaints, the Commission finds no appearance of a violation of the Convention or of its Protocols . It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded wi thin the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .