The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised
as follows:

The applicant is an Iranian citizen, born in 1942 and at present living
in Vienna. He is represented by Dr. P., a barrister practising in

The applicant states that after having successfully finished his higher
education in Teheran, he enrolled in 1963 as a student at the medical
school of the University of Vienna. In July 1968 he presented himself
for an examination in anatomy, which is the first in a series of
examinations called I. Rigorosum. According to an Austrian Decree
(Verordnung) of 1935 (BGBI Nr 329/1935), all Rigorosum examinations
have to be taken within a period of two years from the time a candidate
presents himself for the first examination. The applicant,
consequently, had to pass all his further examinations by July 1970.
This he failed to do, allegedly because he was ill at the time and in
financial difficulties. He therefore requested an extension of the
time-limit. This request was rejected by a board of professors of the
medical school and the applicant was so informed by the Office of the
Dean on .. November 1970. At the same time, the applicant was informed
that according to the provisions of Article III (4) of the Decree of
1935 he was no longer allowed to attend the medical school, or to
obtain a medical degree at another university or to practise medicine
in Austria.

The applicant's appeal against the decision (Bescheid) of .. November
1970 was rejected by the Academic Senate of the University of Vienna
on .. March 1971. It is pointed out in this decision that the applicant
had studied for seven years, i.e. the normal period for medical
studies. In June 1970, the applicant had failed a partial examination
and did not even present himself for the others. The Senate admitted
that from 1968 onwards the applicant had been hindered, to a certain
extent, in his studies by illness and financial difficulties but it
found that this did not explain his failure as he had ample time from
1963 to 1968 in which to prepare for his examinations.

The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal against this decision
which was, however, rejected by the Constitutional Court
(Verfassungsgerichtshof) on .. June 1971 as being ill-founded. This
decision was served on the applicant's lawyer on .. October 1971. The
Court pointed out that the applicant did not pass the examination in
anatomy which he took in July 1968 and did not take the other
examination within the period prescribed by law, i.e. in his case until
4 July 1970. The Court further stated that Article III (4) of the
Decree of 1935 was valid and did not violate Article 18 (2) of the
Constitution (Bundesverfassungsgesetz) nor the principle of freedom of
professional training (Berufsausbildungsfreiheit) as guaranteed by
Article 18 of the Basic Law (Staatsgrundgesetz) nor the right to
education as guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the

The Court finally stated that the application of Article III (4) of the
Decree of 1935 in the applicant's case was not arbitrary but was based
on valid reasons and did not, therefore, violate any of his basic


The applicant is of the opinion that Article III (4) of the
above-mentioned Decree, as well as its application by the Austrian
authorities in his case, constitutes a violation of the Convention,
i.e. of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 read in conjunction with Article
14 of the Convention, because he is permanently barred from practising
as a doctor in Austria.

According to the judgment of 23 July 1958 given by the European Court
of Human Rights in the case "Relating to certain aspects of the laws
on the use of languages in education in Belgium" there must be, so he
points out, a proportionate relationship between the means employed by
the Legislator and the objective aimed at. The objective of Article III
(4) of the Decree of 1935 is to accelerate the study of medicine and
to exclude unsuccessful students. In the applicant's opinion it is,
however, not justified and completely out of all proportion to
permanently deprive an unsuccessful student of the possibility to begin
his studies again or to continue them at a later date. The applicant
states that in the meantime he got married in Austria, has founded a
home and his financial situation has improved. He believes that if he
could continue studying now he would pass all the examinations within
the minimum possible period.

Article 14 of the Convention provides that the enjoyment of the rights
and freedoms in the Convention shall be secured without discrimination
on any ground and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 provides that "No one
shall be denied the right to education ...".

The applicant has complained that he is a victim of a violation of
Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2
of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2). He has based his complaint on the decision
of .. March 1971 of the Academic Senate which had the result that he
was no longer allowed to attend the medical school of Vienna University
or to obtain a medical degree at another university or to practice
medicine in Austria.

The Commission observes that the applicant was admitted to an Austrian
university in 1963 and was free to pursue his medical studies until
1970 and to present himself for his first examination in July 1968;
that he failed to pass this examination and a further examination in
June 1970, and did not present himself for certain other examinations,
and that, under statutory provisions governing preparations for and
conduct of examinations for admission to the profession of medicine,
he was no longer entitled to attend medical school, or seek to obtain
a medical degree in Austria.

The Commission does not consider that the conditions imposed by the
statutory provisions denied him the right to education, or that, in all
the circumstances, he was in any other way denied this right. The
Commission further finds no evidence to suggest that the decision of
the Academic Senate of .. March 1971 was contrary to Article 14
(Art. 14) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol
No. 1 (P1-2).

An examination by the Commission of this complaint as it has been
submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not therefore
disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set
out in the Convention and in particular in Article 14 (Art. 14) of the
Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2).

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

For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION