AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 24515/94
                      by Bahri SULAK
                      against Turkey

     The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 17 January 1996, the following members being present:

           Mr.   C.L. ROZAKIS, President
           Mrs.  J. LIDDY
           MM.   E. BUSUTTIL
                 A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                 A. WEITZEL
                 M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
                 B. MARXER
                 B. CONFORTI
                 N. BRATZA
                 I. BÉKÉS
                 E. KONSTANTINOV
                 G. RESS
                 A. PERENIC
                 C. BÎRSAN
                 K. HERNDL

           Mrs.  M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

     Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

     Having regard to the application introduced on 12 April 1994 by
Bahri SULAK against Turkey and registered on 1 July 1994 under file No.
24515/94;

     Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;

     Having deliberated;

     Decides as follows:

THE FACTS


A.   Particular circumstances of the case

     The applicant is a Turkish citizen, born in 1963 and resident in
Eskisehir.

     The facts of the present case as submitted by the applicant may
be summarised as follows.

     On 4 September 1991 the applicant sat a foreign languages
examination in the Engineering and Architecture Faculty of the
University of X. where he had been studying.

     In a decision dated 27 September 1991, the Administrative Board
of the Faculty found that the applicant had copied from another student
during the examination of 4 September 1991, which constituted a
disciplinary offence in accordance with the Disciplinary Regulations
for students attending Higher Education Institutions (Yüksek Ögretim
Kurumlari Ögrenci Disiplin Yönetmeligi -"the Disciplinary
Regulations"). It observed that the applicant had committed the same
disciplinary offence for the third time. The Board decided to expel the
applicant from the University in accordance with the provisions of the
Disciplinary Regulations.

     Subsequently the applicant instituted proceedings for the
annulment of the decision dated 27 September 1991.

     In a decision dated 16 September 1992, the Eskisehir
Administrative Court dismissed the action. The Court observed that the
Faculty Board had carried out an inquiry and examined the similarity
between the examination papers. It noted that the applicant had been
previously subjected to disciplinary penalties under the provisions of
the Disciplinary Regulations for having committed the same disciplinary
offence. It found that the applicant's expulsion pursuant to the
Disciplinary Regulations was not contrary to the law.

     The applicant appealed. On 26 May 1993 the Council of State,
upholding the cogency of the Administrative Court's reasoning,
dismissed the appeal.

     The applicant requested the rectification of this judgment. On
20 January 1994, the Council of State dismissed this request.

COMPLAINTS

     The applicant complains that his expulsion from the university
pursuant to a disciplinary measure deprived him of the right to
education. He also alleges that under the national regulations,
expelled students are prevented from enroling in another higher
education institution to pursue their studies.

THE LAW

     The applicant complains that the disciplinary sanction imposed
on him deprived him of the right to education. The Commission examined
the applicant's complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2),
which, in so far as relevant, provides:

     "No person shall be denied the right to education..."

     The Commission recalls that the right to education contemplated
in Article 2 of Protocol No. 1(P1-2), mainly concerns elementary
education and not necessarily specialist advanced studies (No.
14524/89, Dec. 6.1.93, D.R. 74 pp. 14, 27).

     In the present case the education in question is higher
education. However, even assuming that Article 2 of Protocol No. 1
(P1-2) is applicable to the present case, the application is in any
event manifestly ill-founded for the following reasons.

     The Commission recalls that the right to education guaranteed by
the first sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) by its very
nature calls for regulation by the State provided that such regulation
does not injure the substance of the right nor conflict with other
rights enshrined in the Convention or its Protocols (cf. Campbell and
Cosans judgment of 25 February 1982, para. 41, Series A, no. 98, p.
19). The Commission further recalls that the right does not in
principle exclude recourse to disciplinary measures, including those
of suspension and expulsion from an educational establishment (cf. No.
14524/89, loc. cit., p. 14, 27).

     In the present case, the Commission notes that the applicant had
an opportunity to follow his chosen course of study in the University
of X. It further notes that the applicant had been disciplined on two
occasions for cheating and can have been in no doubt as to the
requirement of the rules and regulations of the institution or as to
the likely consequences of a further breach of those rules.
Consequently, after having been been found to have cheated a third
time, he was expelled from the University as a disciplinary measure.
In addition, the Commission observes that the applicant had an
opportunity to challenge the diciplinary measure in question before the
national courts which found that his expulsion was lawful.

     It is true that the applicant submits that under the national
regulations, students expelled from higher education institutions are
prevented from enrolling in another higher education institution to
pursue their studies. However, even assuming that this submission is
correct, in the circumstances of the present case, the Commission
cannot find that the expulsion of the applicant injured the substance
of the right guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) or
amounted to a denial of the applicant's right to education guaranteed
by that Article.

     It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

     For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

     DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the First Chamber         President of the First Chamber

     (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                        (C.L. ROZAKIS)