In our country, there are decisions of the Higher Education Institution and the Court of Cassation Law Office in terms of legal disputes regarding the tuition fees received by foundation universities, but today there are many lawsuits whose proceedings are still ongoing.
With the decision of the Higher Education Council of the Republic of Turkey dated 15.09.2008, it has been stated that it is not appropriate to retake the fees for failed courses and lower classes from the students, except for the fee received during the academic year.
ARTICLE 10 OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION LAW
In Article 10 of the Higher Education Law, “Higher education institutions to be established by foundations, like state higher education institutions, ask the higher education board at the end of each academic year, these institutions are subject to the supervision and control of the higher education board in matters such as financial, administrative and economic.” is called. With this clear provision, it will be against this provision with a second and unfair collection.
In the general assembly of the Council of Higher Education dated 15.09.2008, “According to the supplementary article 10 of the Higher Education Law No. 2547, the fee for the semester and academic year of registration for the students studying in foundation higher education institutions, which are subject to the supervision and control of the board in financial, administrative and economic matters. It has been decided that it is not appropriate to charge a fee for the lower class courses from the students who have been taken, transferred to the upper class and have paid the fees for the previous academic year, for the lower class courses that they have previously taken but failed to do, and whose fees have to be taken again.
The attorney of the plaintiff states that the plaintiff received education at a foundation university in the fall semester and that despite the payment of the education fee, a second collection was made from the plaintiff due to the failed courses, and demands the collection of the fee from the defendant. It is understood that the plaintiff paid more than the total tuition fee to the defendant university in the fall semester, and in this context, the defendant university unjustly collected the price from the plaintiff. The fee unjustly collected from the plaintiff constitutes unjust enrichment in terms of the defendant university and the unjustly enriched amount must be returned to the plaintiff.”
Taking into account all these mentioned issues, it is possible to obtain the refund of the unfairly received fees by applying to the legal remedy. These cases will be heard by consumer courts. Because, according to article 1 of the Law on Consumer Protection No. 6502
“The purpose of this Law; To take measures to protect the health and safety and economic interests of the consumer in accordance with the public interest, to compensate for their losses, to protect them from environmental hazards, to enlighten and raise awareness of the consumer, to encourage the initiatives of consumers to protect themselves, and to regulate the issues related to encouraging voluntary organizations in the formation of policies on these issues.
ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 2 OF THE SAME LAW HEADING SCOPE,
“This Law covers all kinds of consumer transactions and consumer-oriented practices.”
provision has been made.
It is clear that students studying at foundation universities are obliged to pay tuition fees. A producer-consumer relationship is established between the university and the student, as students pay a price in return for receiving education services from the school. Since the relationship between foundation universities and students enrolled in the school falls within the scope of the provision of “Consumer courts are responsible for disputes that may arise from consumer transactions and consumer-oriented practices” specified in Article 73 of the Consumer Law, the case will be heard in consumer court.
In the calculation of the statute of limitations for this lawsuit to be filed in the consumer court, the statute of limitations set out in Article 82 of the Code of Obligations 6098, “The right to claim arising from unjust enrichment becomes time-barred after two years, starting from the date on which the right holder learns that he has the right to claim back, and in any case ten years starting from the date of the enrichment.” Judgment will prevail.
You can reach our other article samples and petition samples by clicking here.