Top court finds violation in university's refusal to reissue trans man's diploma

The Constitutional Court has ruled that a university violated a trans man’s right to respect for private life by refusing to reissue his diploma with his legally changed name and gender information.

The court’s General Assembly issued the ruling on Mar 5, 2026. The reasoned decision was published in the Official Gazette yesterday.

The court ruled by a majority that the refusal violated the right to respect for private life guaranteed under Article 20 of the Constitution. It also granted the applicant’s request to keep his identity confidential in publicly available documents.

The applicant, identified as E.D. in the ruling, legally changed his name through a court decision finalized in 2016. Another court ruling finalized in 2018 changed the gender recorded in the population registry from female to male.

E.D. graduated from Bartın University’s Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences in 2014. He subsequently asked the university to reissue his diploma, which contained his former name and identity information, using his current information.

The university rejected the request, saying its regulations did not provide for issuing a new diploma following subsequent changes to a person’s identity information. It instead offered to add a note to the existing diploma explaining the name change.

Local courts rejected the application 

E.D. challenged the decision at the Zonguldak Administrative Court, which dismissed his case. The court argued that the diploma reflected the legal and factual circumstances at the time it was issued and that subsequent changes to identity information did not require its reissuance.

The Ankara Regional Administrative Court also rejected his appeal.

High court review 

Filing an individual application with the Constitutional Court, E.D. argued that he had a right to keep his former name and gender change from being disclosed to third parties.

He said he was required to present his diploma when applying for jobs, which led to questions about his name and gender change.

The Constitutional Court said the right to privacy was not limited to the "right to be left alone" but also encompassed a person’s ability to control information about themselves.

The right to respect for private life includes preventing personal information from being disclosed, disseminated or made accessible to others without consent, the court noted.

It concluded that E.D.’s request to have his diploma reissued under his new name was directly related to his private life and privacy.

The Constitutional Court said the university administration and lower courts had rejected E.D.’s request based solely on secondary legislation without meaningfully addressing his privacy arguments.

"It is clear that information concerning the applicant’s gender change and name change falls within the scope of the right to privacy," the ruling said.

The court noted that E.D. had explained to the university and the courts why he wanted his changed identity information to remain private and why reissuing the diploma was necessary in his circumstances. Those arguments were not taken into account, it noted.

The refusal to reissue the diploma tipped the balance between the public interest and E.D.’s individual interests against the applicant, according to the court. Public authorities had also failed to provide sufficient reasons showing why their decision was necessary and proportionate.

Council of State had ordered new diploma in similar case

The Constitutional Court also cited a similar 2021 ruling by the 8th Chamber of the Council of State, the top administrative court.

The Council of State had found that a person’s former name and gender information should not be disclosed to third parties after the legal gender recognition process had been completed.

It also said bringing official documents into line with a person’s legally recognized identity was directly connected to their personal integrity.

The Council of State found that refusing to issue a diploma containing updated identity information could violate fundamental rights and freedoms, particularly the right to privacy.

Retrial order

The Constitutional Court sent the ruling to the Zonguldak Administrative Court for a retrial to remedy the violation.

It also ordered the payment of 40,446.90 liras to E.D. for legal costs.

Judges Muhterem İnce and Ömer Çınar dissented. They argued that adding a note to the diploma explaining the name change was sufficient and that retaining the former name did not impose an "excessive burden" on the applicant. (HA/VK)