Which rules have more power?
<p>So, there are dormitory regulations and country laws. In the first rules, nothing told about privacy. But according to country law, there is. For example:
&quot;Dormitory assistant has the right to enter students room without their permission.&quot;</p>
<p>AND</p>
<p>&quot;Every person shall have the right to demand that his private and family life is respected. There shall be no violation of the individual's private and family life.&quot;</p>
<p>Dormitory located inside the country of course, so the question here is: Which one here is right? Constitution or dormitory regulations?</p>

<p>Dormitory regulations such as  &quot;Dormitory assistant has the right to enter students room without their permission.&quot; form part of the policy of the dormitory or whatever entity controls it. Students probably agree, in a contract, to accept and abide by such rules.</p>
<p>What the question calls &quot;country laws&quot; such as &quot;Every person shall have the right to demand that his private and family life is respected. There shall be no violation of the individual's private and family life.&quot; probably restrict the action of police and other government agencies. They may or may not also apply to some degree to non-government actors. Thus knowing whether the dormitory is in some way government-run is likely to be important to a good answer.</p>
<p>It may well be that by moving in to the dormitory and accepting its rules, the student has agreed to an exception to national laws about privacy. It is possible that the laws do not permit such an exception, and the corm rule are not legally valid. Without knowing the country at least, one cannot say.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.mfa.gov.tr/constitution-of-the-turkish-cypriot-constituent-state.en.mfa" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Article 23 para 1</a> continues with the sentence &quot;The exceptions necessitated by legal proceedings shall be reserved&quot;. However, Art 25 is specifically directed at dwelling searches, and has more explicit provisions regarding court orders. An unanswered question is how the scope of the state's constitution is determined. Typically, a constitution only limits the power of the state, so if this is a government university that a constitutional-infringement argument would carry more weight. Legislation may have been passed which explicitly incorporates this article against private interests, but we don't and apparently cannot determine from here if that has happened. Art. 12 expression an obligation for the state to act to recognize and protect Part II rights, but a plausible legal answer by the government is &quot;We're discussing that: wait until there is a law&quot;.</p>
<p>If we change jurisdiction to the US, the US Constitution protects against unreasonable search, but that applies to searches by the government, and not by parents or employers, for example. However, each state has enacted laws that would require permission of the person in authority, in the case of tenants and landlords. There is no 50-state answer to the question of whether dormitory-owners can reserve the right to search without permission: it may be in the dormitory contract. Indeed, I don't think that any state in the US grants a minor immunity from parental search of the parent's property occupied by the minor.</p>
<p>Appeal to EU law will not help, since North Cyprus and its constitution are not recognized by the EU.</p>

constitutional-law regulations