1. Introduction and Legal Nature of Examination Disputes

Actions brought to challenge examination results or to seek the determination or annulment of examination grades concern the judicial review of administrative acts established unilaterally by the administration through the exercise of public authority, which produce legal effects and directly affect the legal status of the persons concerned. The review conducted by administrative courts is not intended to substitute the courts’ judgment for that of the administration by conducting a review of expediency or by assigning grades. Rather, it is limited to determining whether administrative acts and actions comply with the applicable legislation, the public interest, and the requirements of public service. Indeed, as stated in the judgment of the Eighth Chamber of the Council of State dated 16 January 2024, Case No. E.2024/155, Decision No. K.2024/38: “The jurisdiction of administrative courts is limited to reviewing the legality of administrative acts and actions.”

In judicial review, the existence of concrete data and objective criteria is required when examining the grounds element of the administrative act underlying an examination result. In its decision on a stay of execution dated 15 November 2023, Case No. E.2023/1652, the Ankara 18th Administrative Court determined that, although the applicable legislation did not require the questions asked, the answers given, or the reasons for the grades assigned by each jury member to be recorded in the minutes of an oral doctoral qualifying examination, no scores had been entered on the evaluation form and no grade had been assigned for the oral examination. Accordingly, the Court concluded that “the administrative act established without an oral examination grade was not amenable to judicial review.”

2. Administrative Remedies, the Right to Bring an Action, and Time Limits for Filing Actions

The legislation may require administrative objection mechanisms to be pursued before an action is brought against an administrative act. In the case described in the judgment of the Tenth Chamber of the Council of State dated 20 October 2020, Case No. E.2015/2123, Decision No. K.2020/4003, the claimant “lodged an objection with the defendant administration, requesting a reassessment on the grounds that the evaluation had been erroneous, and the objection lodged by the claimant was rejected through an announcement made by the defendant administration.” The subsequent course of the actions brought thereafter was then examined.

On the other hand, closing off the administrative objection procedure through administrative regulations does not prevent a person from bringing an action before the courts. In its judgment dated 7 June 2022, Case No. E.2019/7901, Decision No. K.2022/3345, the Twelfth Chamber of the Council of State stated, in relation to the provision in the relevant regulation that “No objection may be lodged against the decisions of the examination commission,” that “it is clear that this provision concerns the closure of the administrative objection procedure and does not affect the right to bring an action, which is a constitutional right.”

With regard to centralised examinations, Article 20/B of Law No. 2577 on Administrative Judicial Procedure (“the AJPL”) establishes a special expedited judicial procedure. In its judgment dated 27 October 2015, Case No. E.2015/417, Decision No. K.2015/4671, the Tenth Chamber of the Council of State emphasised that this procedure applies to “actions brought concerning centralised and joint examinations conducted by the Ministry of National Education and the Assessment, Selection and Placement Centre, the acts and procedures relating to such examinations, and examination results.”

Note: The judgments identified in the research review do not contain specific findings concerning the general time limits for bringing annulment actions relating to university examinations.

3. Jurisdiction, Venue, and Proper Defendant

The determination of the competent court in full-remedy actions seeking compensation arising from examination assessments is governed by Article 36 of Law No. 2577. In its judgment dated 20 October 2020, Case No. E.2015/2123, Decision No. K.2020/4003, the Tenth Chamber of the Council of State stated that, since the examination had been held in Ankara, the dispute “should be resolved by the Ankara Administrative Court, being the court having territorial jurisdiction to resolve the administrative dispute giving rise to the damage.”

The current text of Article 36 of the Law reads as follows:

“Except for those arising from administrative contracts, the court having jurisdiction over full-remedy actions shall be, respectively: (a) the administrative court having jurisdiction to resolve the administrative dispute giving rise to the damage; (b) where the damage arises from a public service such as public works or transportation, or from any action of the administration, the administrative court of the place where the service is performed or the action takes place; and (c) in other cases, the administrative court of the place where the claimant resides.”

Note: The judicial decisions contained in the research file do not include any specific explanation regarding the party against whom an action concerning an examination grade should be brought, nor do they address the distinction between state and foundation universities in terms of the applicable judicial avenue.

4. Scope of Judicial Review and the Obligations of the Administration

The case law of the Council of State recognises that, in actions brought concerning examination grades and results, courts must obtain all relevant information and documents from the administration in order to conduct a complete review of legality.

• Prohibition of Incomplete Examination of the Case: In its judgment dated 30 October 2024, Case No. E.2023/5375, Decision No. K.2024/5200, the Second Chamber of the Council of State stated that “the Administrative Court should have requested from the defendant administration the questions and answers for the resit examinations, the claimant’s answer sheets, and other relevant documents, and subsequently rendered a decision after conducting the necessary legal review.” As the decision had been rendered without carrying out this examination, the review was deemed incomplete, and the judgment of the Regional Administrative Court was quashed pursuant to Article 49(2)(b) of Law No. 2577 on Administrative Judicial Procedure, which provides for the quashing of the relevant decision.
• Objective Exercise of Discretionary Power: In its judgment dated 7 June 2022, Case No. E.2019/7901, Decision No. K.2022/3345, the Twelfth Chamber of the Council of State examined a situation in which every member of the commission had awarded the candidate the same score under every assessment criterion. Having concluded that “discretionary power had not been exercised objectively,” the Court annulled the administrative act declaring the candidate individually unsuccessful.
• Judicial Review of Oral Examinations (Dissenting Opinion): In the dissenting opinion attached to the judgment of the Twelfth Chamber of the Council of State dated 12 October 2023, Case No. E.2021/2273, Decision No. K.2023/4870, the following view was expressed: “The administrative act declaring a candidate unsuccessful in an oral examination must, as with the judicial review of other administrative acts, be reviewed in terms of competence, form, grounds, subject matter, and purpose.”
• Review of Examination Commissions and Question Cards: In its judgment dated 14 January 2025, Case No. E.2024/5164, Decision No. K.2025/110, the Twelfth Chamber of the Council of State noted that, during the oral examination, candidates were asked to draw and answer a question card from among those previously prepared, together with their answers, by the Question Preparation Commission. The first-instance court had rejected the action after determining that the commission’s average score was 55 points, and the Council of State upheld that judgment.
• Application of More Favourable Regulations During Judicial Proceedings: In its judgments dated 28 May 2025, Case No. E.2024/5045, Decision No. K.2025/2792, and Case No. E.2024/5022, Decision No. K.2025/2793, the Second Chamber of the Council of State emphasised that “the amendment made to the regulation while the judicial proceedings are ongoing must also be applied in favour of the claimant.” Accordingly, the appellate judgments dismissing the actions were quashed.

5. Expert Examination, Material Errors, and Annulment of Examination Questions

Where the assessment of examinations and the scientific adequacy of questions require technical expertise, administrative courts resort to expert examination.

1. Assessment of a Student’s Examination Paper

In its judgment dated 23 October 1991, Case No. E.1991/149, Decision No. K.1991/1690, the Eighth Chamber of the Council of State upheld the first-instance court’s decision annulling the contested administrative act on the grounds that the expert report commissioned by that court demonstrated that the student had passed the relevant course. The Council of State found the decision to be “in accordance with procedural rules and the law.”

2. Defective Questions and Assessment Criteria

• In its judgment dated 10 March 2022, Case No. E.2022/1704, Decision No. K.2022/1547, the Eighth Chamber of the Council of State considered an expert report finding that Question 80 “had not been prepared in accordance with assessment and selection criteria and was of a nature likely to cause uncertainty among candidates.” The first-instance court annulled the question on that basis, and the Chamber rejected the appeal on points of law and upheld the judgment.
• In its judgment dated 2 June 2022, Case No. E.2022/1012, Decision No. K.2022/2022, the Administrative Litigation Chambers Board upheld an annulment decision on the grounds that “Question No. 14 of the examination was found to be unlawful in terms of scientific standards and question-setting techniques.”
• In its judgment dated 10 November 2022, Case No. E.2022/4794, Decision No. K.2022/5137, the Tenth Chamber of the Council of State determined that Question 34 “had clearly not been prepared in accordance with question-setting techniques and assessment and evaluation rules and therefore had to be annulled.” An expert report established that the correct answer choice had been incorrectly identified, and the judgment dismissing the action was quashed.
• In the expert report referred to in the judgment of the Second Chamber of the Council of State dated 18 November 2020, Case No. E.2018/2674, Decision No. K.2020/3428, it was concluded that “the questions did not contain contradictory answers, the correct answers reflected the legally correct position, and therefore no defect could be identified in the questions in terms of the elements of the administrative act.” The Council of State upheld the dismissal of the action, substituting its own reasoning for that of the lower court.

3. Absence of a Material Error

In its judgment dated 17 November 2021, Case No. E.2021/7381, Decision No. K.2021/5856, the Twelfth Chamber of the Council of State upheld the dismissal of an action after rejecting the appeal on points of law. The first-instance court had concluded that “the questions correctly answered, incorrectly answered, and left unanswered by the claimant were entirely consistent with the assessment carried out by the defendant administration.”

Similarly, in its judgment dated 28 May 2025, Case No. E.2024/5045, Decision No. K.2025/2792, the Second Chamber of the Council of State referred to the first-instance court’s finding that “there was no material error in the assessment of the questions asked in the examination and the answers provided by the claimant.”

4. Scoring Method for Defective Questions

In its judgment dated 27 October 2015, Case No. E.2015/417, Decision No. K.2015/4671, the Tenth Chamber of the Council of State held that, rather than awarding candidates additional points directly for annulled questions, “the point value of each question must be determined by dividing the full score of 100 by the number of valid questions” in cases involving incorrectly formulated questions.

6. Stay of Execution and the Procedure for Objecting to Such Decisions

Pursuant to Article 27(2) of Law No. 2577, a stay of execution may be granted only where both of the following conditions are satisfied: implementation of the administrative act would cause damage that is difficult or impossible to remedy, and the administrative act is manifestly unlawful.

• In its judgment dated 12 March 2021, Case No. E.2020/5339, Decision No. K.2021/1299, the Twelfth Chamber of the Council of State reiterated that both conditions must be satisfied, namely, “the occurrence of damage that is difficult or impossible to remedy and the manifest unlawfulness of the administrative act.”
• In its decision on a stay of execution dated 15 November 2023, Case No. E.2023/1652, the Ankara 18th Administrative Court granted a stay of execution in respect of the act found to be unlawful, on the grounds that “its implementation could cause damage that would be difficult to remedy.”
• Finality of Decisions on Objections: In its judgment dated 5 December 1991, Case No. E.1991/3289, Decision No. K.1991/1908, the Eighth Chamber of the Council of State referred to the rule that objections could be lodged against decisions of Regional Administrative Courts before the nearest Regional Administrative Court and that decisions rendered upon such objections were final. It then stated that “since the decisions rendered by Regional Administrative Courts upon examining objections to decisions concerning requests for a stay of execution are final pursuant to the additional paragraph 12 of Law No. 2577, it is not possible for the Council of State to review such decisions on appeal.” Accordingly, the appeal lodged before the Council of State was dismissed without examination on the merits.Similarly, in its judgment dated 12 March 2021, Case No. E.2020/5339, Decision No. K.2021/1299, the Twelfth Chamber of the Council of State dismissed the appeal without examining its merits, stating that “it is clear that the decision rendered by the Regional Administrative Court upon objection is final.”
• Implementation of Judgments: In its judgment dated 5 February 2025, Case No. E.2022/5325, Decision No. K.2025/400, the Eighth Chamber of the Council of State cited Article 28 of Law No. 2577, which provides that “the administration is obliged, without delay, to establish the necessary administrative acts or take the necessary actions in accordance with the requirements of judgments rendered by the Council of State, Regional Administrative Courts, and Administrative and Tax Courts concerning the merits of a case and stays of execution.”An additional sentence was introduced into Article 28 of Law No. 2577 by Article 7 of Law No. 7588 dated 2 July 2026 (Official Gazette dated 11 July 2026), providing that judgments ordering reinstatement in certain cases arising from links to terrorist organisations and security investigations may not be implemented before they become final.

7. Principles for Drafting Petitions and Formal Requirements under Law No. 2577

The mandatory rules set out in Articles 3 and 5 of Law No. 2577 must be strictly observed when preparing a statement of claim.

1. Specification of the Alleged Illegality

In its judgment dated 27 December 2022, Case No. E.2022/7294, Decision No. K.2022/8202, the Eighth Chamber of the Council of State established the following rule: “In statements of claim, the contested administrative acts and the grounds for the action—in other words, the legal rules on which the alleged unlawfulness of the administrative act is based—must be specified concretely, clearly, and precisely.”

Where these requirements are not met, the petition is dismissed pursuant to Article 15(1)(d) of the Law, “without prejudice to the right to bring a new action by submitting a duly prepared petition within 30 days from the date of notification of this decision.”

2. Clarity of the Subject Matter of the Action and the Relief Sought

In its judgment dated 16 January 2024, Case No. E.2024/155, Decision No. K.2024/38, the Eighth Chamber of the Council of State dismissed a petition pursuant to Article 15(1)(d) of the same Law because it did not comply with Article 3 of Law No. 2577. The petition failed to clearly identify the administrative act being challenged and sought relief that would require the court to substitute itself for the administration.

The operative part of the decision provided for “the DISMISSAL OF THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM, which does not comply with Article 3 of Law No. 2577, pursuant to subparagraph (d) of paragraph 1 of Article 15 of the same Law, without prejudice to the right to bring a new action by submitting a duly prepared petition within 30 days from the date of notification of this decision.”

3. Limitations on Bringing an Action by a Single Petition (Article 5 of the AJPL)

As explained in the judgment of the Eighth Chamber of the Council of State dated 1 February 2024, Case No. E.2023/1420, Decision No. K.2024/323, where there is no causal relationship between a decision declaring a candidate unsuccessful and a general regulatory provision, the two acts cannot be challenged in the same petition.

The Court stated that “the act declaring the claimant unsuccessful in the associate professorship application was not an implementing act established pursuant to the provisions of the Regulation challenged in the proceedings, and there was no substantive or legal connection or causal relationship between these acts within the meaning of Article 5 of Law No. 2577.”

On that basis, the Court held that “a separate action must be brought in respect of each act, and the right or interest relied upon in seeking the annulment of each contested act must be clearly demonstrated,” and ordered the dismissal of the petition.

8. Legal Remedies: Appeal and Appeal on Points of Law

The legal remedies available against first-instance Administrative Court judgments are regulated by Articles 45 and 46 of Law No. 2577.

Appellate Review (Article 45 of the AJPL)

• As explained in the judgment of the Eighth Chamber of the Council of State dated 23 October 2020, Case No. E.2016/14061, Decision No. K.2020/4673, appeals against first-instance court judgments concerning university students’ progression between academic years and the determination of their grades are brought before the Regional Administrative Court. In its judgment, the Chamber ordered that “the case file be sent to the Administrative Court […] for transmission to the Ankara Regional Administrative Court, which is competent to examine the case by way of objection.”
• Article 45 of Law No. 2577 was amended by Article 5 of Law No. 7589 dated 16 July 2026 (Official Gazette dated 31 July 2026). The circumstances in which a Regional Administrative Court dismisses an appeal on the merits (paragraph 3) and the limited circumstances in which it sets aside the judgment and remits the case to the first-instance court (paragraph 5) were revised. In addition, the Constitutional Court issued a decision of annulment concerning the relevant provision in its Decision No. 2025/83 (Official Gazette dated 26 June 2025).

Review on Points of Law (Articles 46 and 49 of the AJPL)

Whether decisions of Regional Administrative Courts concerning examination disputes are subject to review on points of law must be assessed within the framework of Article 46 of the AJPL.

• In its judgment dated 18 November 2020, Case No. E.2018/2674, Decision No. K.2020/3428, the Second Chamber of the Council of State stated that, pursuant to Article 46 of Law No. 2577, “only actions concerning examinations conducted for the purpose of education or the practice of a profession or trade, or entry into public service, where such examinations are administered nationwide, are subject to review on points of law.” A promotion examination conducted by a university for its own personnel was not considered to fall within this scope. The Regional Administrative Court’s judgment was therefore upheld, with its reasoning modified.
• In its judgment dated 22 September 2022, Case No. E.2022/5420, Decision No. K.2022/5087, the Eighth Chamber of the Council of State held that the Certified Public Accountant (CPA) internship entrance examination did not itself confer the right to practise a profession or trade but merely constituted a prerequisite for commencing the internship. The Court consequently determined that “decisions rendered by Regional Administrative Courts following appellate review, which fall outside the scope of Article 46, are final.” The appeal on points of law was therefore dismissed without examination of its merits. The same approach was reiterated in the judgment of the Eighth Chamber of the Council of State dated 23 November 2023, Case No. E.2022/426, Decision No. K.2023/6200.
• A second paragraph was added to Article 46 of Law No. 2577 by Article 6 of Law No. 7589 dated 16 July 2026 (Official Gazette dated 31 July 2026). Under this amendment, in cases falling outside the scope of the first paragraph, decisions rendered anew by a Regional Administrative Court after setting aside a first-instance court judgment during appellate review may be appealed before the Council of State. However, the right to appeal on points of law remains unavailable in cases heard by a single judge and in the exceptions specified in the paragraph.

9. Position of State and Foundation Universities and Limitations of the Research

The judgments included in the research pool do not contain any assessment or finding concerning differences in the legal regimes applicable to state and foundation universities, the judicial remedies available against examination decisions of foundation universities, or the distinction between the parties against whom proceedings should be brought.

Accordingly, the research findings do not permit a comparison between state and foundation universities in the context of examination disputes.