5.  The applicants were students at various faculties attached to Afyon Kocatepe University in Afyon, Turkey, at the time of the events. 6.  On various dates between 27 December 2001 and 4 January 2002 the applicants petitioned the University Rector’s Office and requested that Kurdish language classes be introduced as an optional module. 7.  Around the same time similar petitions were submitted by students studying at various Universities in Turkey. 8.  The following are extracts from the petition submitted by the applicants:
“... When Article 42 of the Constitution concerning the right to instruction and education is considered together with the recent amendment to the Constitution, it must be held to provide a constitutional right to education in the language one knows the best: one’s mother tongue...
... Unfortunately, for years, starting with the Kurds, peoples in Turkey were treated as if they did not exist and, owing to fears of secession, they were prevented from developing their languages and cultures...
As a student who believes that I am taking a step to assist the democratisation in Turkey, I request from the Chancellor of our University that Kurdish be taught in our University, under optional courses.” 9.  On 18 January 2002, relying on Regulation 9 (d) of the Disciplinary Regulations of Higher Education Institutions, the Administrative Board of Afyon Kocatepe University, after having heard the defence submissions of the applicants, suspended them from the university for a period of two terms starting from spring term, except for Mr Pulat, who was suspended for one term after having shown remorse, on the ground that although they appeared to be lodging individual petitions, the petitions were the same as regards style and content, and the applicants had acknowledged that their acts had constituted an offence for which they showed no remorse. 10.  The applicants, upon notification of the disciplinary sanctions in question, lodged separate actions with the Denizli Administrative Court, requesting a stay of execution of the disciplinary decisions, to be followed by their annulment. 11.  On various dates, the applicants’ requests for a stay of execution were rejected by the Denizli Administrative Court, without any further elaboration, on the ground that the conditions required under domestic law were not met. 12.  These decisions were upheld by the Denizli Regional Administrative Court on the ground that none of the arguments advanced by the applicants provided sufficient reasons to set aside the first-instance court’s decision. 13.  In the course of the proceedings the applicants claimed to have unsuccessfully sought another stay of execution of disciplinary decisions given in respect of them. 14.  In the meantime, however, it appears that in a similar case brought before the Istanbul Administrative Court, that court, on 9 May 2002, had suspended the execution of the disciplinary sanction. In its decision the court examined the content of the petition and the manner in which the disciplinary procedure was handled. It found that the disciplinary sanction in question was unlawful and that, therefore, its application would cause irreparable damage to the plaintiff. 15.  On 24 October 2002 the Denizli Administrative Court examined the merits of the cases and dismissed them. In its decisions, the court noted, inter alia, that the University Rector’s Office had received information from the Afyon Governor’s Office about the PKK[2]‘s new strategy of action within the framework of civil disobedience, which included, inter alia, petitioning for education in Kurdish. The administration considered therefore that the identical petitions submitted around the same time by the applicants, who were persistent and threatening in their requests, were part of a planned and organised action contrary to Article 9 (d) of the Disciplinary Regulations of Higher Education Institutions. 16.  In December 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed those decisions and remitted the case to the first-instance court. 17.  On 12 May 2004 the Denizli Administrative Court adhered to the Supreme Administrative Court’s ruling and annulled the disciplinary sanctions against the applicants. In its decision, the court noted, inter alia, that section 74 of the Constitution enables Turkish nationals to petition the authorities in matters concerning their own or the public interest. It further noted that, pursuant to section 4 (a) of Higher Education Law, higher education aimed to train students in becoming citizens who are, inter alia, objective, broad‑minded, and respectful of human rights, developed physically, mentally, psychologically, morally and emotionally, in a balanced way, and who contribute to the country’s development and welfare and at the same time acquire the necessary knowledge and skills for their future vocations. Accordingly, the applicants’ petitions to the authorities for optional Kurdish language classes could not be construed as acts which gives rise to polarization on the basis of language, race, religion or denomination within the meaning of Regulation 9 (d) of the Disciplinary Regulations of Higher Education Institutions and did not run counter to the aims sought by higher education under section 4 (a) of Higher Education Law. The court further noted that the latest legislative amendment of 9 August 2002 permitted the creation of private courses in order to allow Turkish citizens to learn different languages and dialects which they would traditionally use in their daily life. 18.  In the meantime, criminal proceedings brought against the applicants had ended with their acquittal on charges of aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation.