5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Ankara. At the relevant time he was a professor of translation in the Faculty of Science and Literature of the University of Mersin (“the faculty”). He specialised in the German language. 6.  On an unspecified date the applicant was invited to Istanbul to take part in a television programme that was due to be broadcast live on a public channel on Saturday 31 March 2001. The programme consisted of a debate on the topic of “The cultural structure of the European Union and the traditional structure of Turkey – Comparing identities and modes of behaviour – Likely problems and suggested solutions”. 7.  On 27 March 2001 the applicant informed the director of the translation course that he had been invited to take part in the above-mentioned programme. 8.  On the same day the course director wrote to the dean of the faculty informing him that the applicant had been invited to take part in a television programme. In his letter he also expressed doubts as to whether there was a link between the applicant’s specialist field and the subject of the programme and whether the applicant’s invitation to take part in a personal capacity was in keeping with the university’s principles. 9.  On 30 March 2001 the dean of the faculty informed the director of the translation course that it had been decided that the applicant’s participation in the programme in question was not appropriate. The applicant was informed of the dean’s decision the same day. 10.  On 31 March 2001 the applicant nevertheless took part in the programme in Istanbul. 11.  In letters dated 2 and 5 April 2001 to the dean of the faculty, the applicant asked why his participation in the broadcast of 31 March 2001 had not been considered appropriate in spite of his past work on the subject covered by the programme. He added that it would have harmed his professional standing and reputation for reliability if he had withdrawn from the programme at short notice when he had already agreed to take part. He also maintained that he had been entitled to take part in the event, citing his academic freedom in that regard. 12.  In a letter to the applicant dated 9 April 2001 the dean of the faculty replied that the applicant had not been entitled to take part in the event without the authorities’ permission. He added that the director of the translation course had expressed misgivings as to whether the applicant was sufficiently familiar with the topic of the programme of 31 March 2001, and that the view of the course director had been taken into account in the decision to refuse authorisation. 13.  On Saturday 14 April 2001 the applicant took part in another programme in the same series, following an international conference held in Istanbul from 11 to 13 April 2001 which the dean of the faculty had authorised him to attend. 14.  On 27 April 2001 a disciplinary inquiry was opened concerning the applicant on the grounds that he had twice taken part in the programme in Istanbul without the university’s authorisation. 15.  On 26 June 2001 the commission of inquiry published its report. It noted at the outset that the applicant had been authorised to take part in events outside his city of residence on twelve occasions during the 2000/01 academic year, but that his request for authorisation concerning the programme of 31 March 2001 had been refused in view of the opinion of the course director, who considered that the topic of the programme was not directly linked to the applicant’s specialist field. As to the applicant’s participation in the broadcast of 14 April 2001, the commission noted that the dean of the faculty had authorised the applicant to attend an academic gathering to be held from 11 to 13 April 2001 in Istanbul, and that this authorisation had not covered 14 April 2001. The commission considered in that regard that not even research professors should take part in programmes of this type without supervision or authorisation, and that universities had to uphold academic ethics. It went on to find that the applicant’s participation in two television programmes in Istanbul on 31 March and 14 April 2001, without authorisation from his university, amounted to leaving his city of residence without authorisation, an offence punishable under regulation 8(g) of the disciplinary regulations for managers, lecturers and officials in higher education institutions (“the disciplinary regulations”). It therefore proposed, by way of a penalty, that the applicant’s salary be reduced by one-eighth, under regulation 4(d) of the above-mentioned regulations. 16.  On 2 July 2001 the dean of the faculty decided to reduce the applicant’s salary by one-eighth for leaving his city of residence without authorisation, an offence punishable under regulation 8(g) of the disciplinary regulations. 17.  On 20 July 2001 the applicant applied to the University Vice‑Chancellor for reconsideration of that decision and requested that the sanction be lifted. 18.  On 8 August 2001 the Vice-Chancellor decided to lift the sanction of a reduction in salary and to impose a less severe penalty on the applicant, in the form of a reprimand under regulation 16 of the disciplinary regulations. 19.  On 25 October 2001 the applicant applied for judicial review of that decision. He referred to his academic freedom, which he claimed was provided for in the Constitution, as justification for his participation in the television programme in question, pointing out that the programme had been broadcast on a public-service channel. He also argued that regulation 8(g) of the disciplinary regulations was liable to be wrongfully applied by managers and that the perimeter of a city no longer had the same significance in view of modern means of transport and communication. Lastly, he argued that the programme of 14 April 2001 had been a follow-up to the conference of 11 to 13 April 2001, which he had been authorised to attend, and that the people invited to appear on the programme had been participants in the conference. 20.  On 29 May 2002 the Adana Administrative Court (“the Administrative Court”) dismissed the applicant’s application, finding that the decision to penalise him had not been unlawful. The court noted in that regard that it was beyond dispute that, on 31 March 2001, the applicant had left his city of residence despite the refusal of his request to take part in the television programme in question. The court considered that the applicant’s remaining arguments gave no reason to suppose that the decision to impose a sanction had been defective. 21.  On 8 August 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. He complained, in particular, that the Administrative Court’s examination of his claims had been inadequate. 22.  On 31 October 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Administrative Court’s judgment. It found that the reasoning of the decision had been in conformity with the procedure and the law and that there were no grounds for quashing the decision.