5.  The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in Diyarbakır. 6.  In 2005, while he was a first-year mechanics student in the technical faculty of Fırat University (“the faculty”), the applicant was seriously injured in an accident which left his lower limbs paralysed. He had to suspend his studies until he had recovered sufficiently to return to university. 1.  On 17 March 2007 the applicant requested the faculty to adapt the university premises in order to enable him to resume his studies for the 2007‑2008 academic year. 2.  The faculty replied to that request by letter of 25 May 2007. It pointed out that the faculty building had been designed and built with several floors in order to accommodate 3,000 students and that its architecture could not be adapted. It stated that the administration had been asked for leave to conduct redevelopment work on the doors to the building, but that that work could not be carried out in the short term. It added that the mechanics course required the applicant to participate in practical workshops, considering that as things stood such participation would cause problems. The faculty concluded that if the applicant wished to continue his studies it would help him as far as possible. 3.  On 16 August 2007 the applicant sent, through a notary, formal notice to the administration of Fırat University and the faculty dean inviting them to carry out the redevelopment work requested. Relying on Article 42 of the Constitution, section 15 of Law no. 5378 on persons with disabilities and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, he affirmed that it was the State’s duty to guarantee the citizens’ right to education, in line with the principle of equal opportunities. He further alleged that the faculty’s reply to his request (see paragraph 8 above) had been intended solely to induce him to abandon his studies. 4.  The administration replied to that formal notice by letter of 10 September 2007. The latter stated that the redevelopment works mentioned should be considered in the light of compliance with the regulations on public property, which could take some time. Furthermore, any problems encountered by the applicant in attending the theoretical classes administered in a three-storey building could be resolved with the help of a companion.
The Administration pointed out that the practical workshops were held on the ground floor of the building and posed no problems with regard to access, and that the applicant would consequently have no difficulty in attending the courses administered in the framework of those workshops. It explained that the only reason why the applicant’s participation in the practical workshops had previously been described as problematic (see paragraph 8 above) was that such workshops necessitated a considerable physical effort and that his particular situation required some thought regarding the type of assistance with which he could be provided. Furthermore, all the parties involved were anxious to help students in difficulty, and there was no question of deterring the applicant from continuing his studies. Finally, the Administration pointed out that since, in its view, the budget allocated by the State was limited, the redevelopment work necessitated by the applicant’s situation was subject to unavoidable budgetary and time constraints. 5.  On 15 November 2007 the applicant filed with the Elazığ Administrative Court an action for annulment of the university’s replies of 25 May and 10 September 2007 and to provide compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage which he claimed he had sustained. He complained that the authorities had not removed the physical obstacles preventing him from exercising his right to education. He claimed 25,000 Turkish liras (TRY) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and TRY 30,000 in respect of pecuniary damage. 6.  The Administration of Fırat University replied in a defence memorial of 24 March 2008. That document stated that the university had not been responsible for the applicant’s accident. It criticised the applicant for having opted for judicial channels, and alleged that he was acting in bad faith, adding, in that connection, that he had been informed that he would be provided with support should he decide to return to university. Furthermore, the relevant agencies had been contacted with a view to redeveloping the faculty building and a proposal had been made to include the works in an investment programme complying with the relevant regulations governing public property. The Administration further argued that it had offered the applicant the services of an assistant, but that he had not submitted any request for such help. The office added that access to the workshops posed no problems for persons with disabilities, but that the courses administered at the workshops demanded a physical effort from participants. Lastly, it pointed out that the applicant had never been barred from any course. 7.  The applicant replied, refuting the arguments put forward by the Administration. He submitted that his right to education was guaranteed by domestic law and by Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and that it was incumbent on the domestic authorities to take steps to enable him to exercise that right, with respect for the principle of equal opportunities. Moreover, he argued that the redevelopment work requested was such as should already have been conducted in any case, in line with the requirements of section 1bis of Law no. 3194 on urban planning (see paragraph 23 above). Furthermore, he considered that the authorities’ offer of an assistant illustrated their ignorance of his personal situation and the implications of that situation. He added that it would be degrading for him to be placed in a situation of dependence on a third person because of his disability, citing the example of how the constant presence and assistance of a third person would invade his privacy. He also pointed out that the fact of being carried upstairs by another individual comprised a definite risk of his falling. 8.  On 13 October 2008 the faculty terminated its contracts with a number of students, including the applicant, on the grounds that they had not re-registered at the start of two successive academic years. 9.  2 November 2009 saw the enactment of Legislative Decree no. 2009/15546, published in the Official Gazette (“the OG”) on 13 November 2009, closing down certain categories of institutions of higher education, including technical faculties, one of which was the technical faculty of Fırat University, which was replaced by a new faculty of technology. Under the legislative decree students who were already registered could continue their studies in the new faculties. 10.  On 9 April 2010 the Elazığ Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. In the reasoning of its judgment it stated, in particular, that the buildings in question had been erected in accordance with the regulations in force in 1988. The court took the view that although it was incumbent on the authorities to apply the technical guidelines set out in the legislation subsequently enacted for persons with disabilities, it could not be contended that the respondent authority had not followed those guidelines during the construction of a building erected in 1988, before the guidelines had come into force. Lastly, the judgment mentioned that the authorities had informed the complainant that architectural measures would be adopted, depending on the available budget, and that a person would be appointed to assist him in attending the courses. 11.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Administrative Court against that judgment. 12.  On 18 January 2011 the Supreme Administrative Court delivered a judgment dismissing that appeal on points of law and upholding the first-instance judgment as being in conformity with the procedure and laws. 13.  The applicant lodged an application for rectification of that judgment with the Supreme Administrative Court, complaining of an infringement of his right to education and the equality principle. 14.  On 28 September 2011 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s application, holding that there were no grounds for rectification.