THE FACTS 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 Vienna. 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 Convention. 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 rights. Complaints 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 LAW 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 INADMISSIBLE.