Published on 7 April 2025
 
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 54711/18
Marek JOPP
against Poland
lodged on 9 November 2018
communicated on 17 March 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the refusal to admit the applicant to postgraduate studies, the operation of which was financed in part from public funds.
In March 2017 the dean of the College of Social and Media Culture in Toruń (a private college) decided not to admit the applicant to the school’s post-graduate studies in the field of ecology, financed in part by the State, because the applicant had not submitted a recommendation from the priest of his parish church. The dean explained that the academic community of the college was based on Christian and patriotic values (as stated in the college’s statute). Submitting a recommendation from a parish priest was a condition of admission to the college. Owing to the limited capacity of the college, students with a complete admission application were given priority.
Prior to filing his application with the college in question, the applicant had been informed by the admissions officer that as an alternative to the required recommendation from a parish priest, candidates could file a statement explaining why they chose not to submit such a recommendation. The applicant’s application was accompanied by the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I am not submitting any recommendation issued by a parish priest, because I am a non-believer”.
The applicant appealed against the dean’s decision, arguing that the requirement to submit a recommendation from a parish priest was discriminatory against him as a non-believer and was in breach of the constitutional principle of equal treatment.
On 22 April 2017 the chancellor of the college upheld the dean’s decision. The chancellor observed that the requirement in question was not discriminatory in that its only purpose was to obtain information and ensure internal order. In particular, it was a way of ensuring that the student would be inclined to abide by the statute of the college and to follow the highest ethical standards.
The applicant appealed to the administrative court, relying, inter alia, on the principle of equality and Article 9 of the Convention.
The Regional Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s appeal and, on 17 April 2018, the Supreme Court dismissed his cassation appeal (served on 9 May 2018). The courts held that they had no jurisdiction to review the decision issued in the applicant’s case. They observed that only enumerated decisions issued by a university could be subject to a judicial review by an administrative court. In the light of the applicable law, decision on a student’s admission was thus considered an “administrative decision” subject to judicial review only if it concerned main, bachelor or master’s studies and not post-graduate programmes.
The applicant invokes Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and Articles 9, 13 and 14 of the Convention. He complains that he was denied access to post-graduate education which was financed in part by the State and that he was discriminated against, because he declared being a non-believer. The applicant also complains that he did not have an effective remedy in the matter.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Regarding the refusal to admit the applicant to the post-graduate ecology studies at the College of Social and Media Culture – financed in part by the State – and the lack of judicial review in that matter:
 
1.  Has the applicant been denied the right to education, guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, does this provision apply to the type of education which the applicant sought to obtain (see, mutatis mutandis, Leyla Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, §§ 136-137, ECHR 2005-XI; Velyo Velev v. Bulgaria, no. 16032/07, §§ 31-33, ECHR 2014; and Mürsel Eren v. Turkey, no. 60856/00, § 41, ECHR 2006-II)?
 
2.  Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of religion, within the meaning of Article 9 § 1 of the Convention (for general principles, see Grzelak v. Poland, no. 7710/02, § 87, 15 June 2010 with further references)? If so, was that interference in accordance with the requirements of Article 9 § 2?
 
3.  Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the ground of his status of a non-believer, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 9 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Grzelak v. Poland, no. 7710/02, §§ 88, 93, 15 June 2010)?
 
4.  Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?