StudentSafe EuropeStudent protection in higher education

EU Member State · HR

Croatia Hrvatska

Status
Institution-level research available
Reviewed
Coverage
12/12 researched
Verification
0 verified · 12 provisional
National results, S01–S12

12 of 12 national findings are provisional. Researched with AI assistance from official sources, with an independent automated cross-check. All findings await verification by a human second reviewer. They may change.

Research here is incomplete. Missing data is not absence of safeguards.

Record details
Research status
Institution-level research available · all findings provisional
Last reviewed
Methodology
Methodology v0.1
Coverage
12 of 12 safeguards researched at national level · 0 verified · 12 provisional
Human verification
Not yet carried out
Research confidence
Medium confidence
Data file
data/countries/croatia.yml

Findings

Safeguards in national rules

What national rules require of universities; universities may add more. Select a safeguard for its evidence.

These are published rules, not evidence of how they work in practice.

  • S01 Definition of abuse of academic authority Provisional
    Provisional — awaiting verification Medium confidence

    QuestionDo the rules define misuse of academic authority (assessment, supervision, admission, progression, references, research credit) as a form of misconduct?

    Provisional. Not yet verified by a human reviewer. May change.

    Finding
    The Act on Higher Education requires members of the academic community (teachers and students) to base their relations on mutual trust and respect for the dignity of every person ("poštovanju dostojanstva svake osobe" - respect for the dignity of every person). Each institution must set up an ethics committee covering, among other things, teaching and mutual relations, and adopt an ethics code that defines ethical offences and the procedure for preventing and sanctioning unethical conduct; a National Council issues minimum ethical principles that form part of each code. Separately, the Anti-Discrimination Act and the Gender Equality Act define harassment (linked to the protected grounds) and sexual harassment and treat them as discrimination, and the Anti-Discrimination Act applies expressly to the field of education and science.
    Source location
    ZVOZD Articles 3(3), 55(1)-(4); ZSD Articles 3 and 8(2); ZRS Article 8
    Rationale in brief
    The national framework contains general ethics and dignity duties and delegates the definition of ethical offences to institutions. It does not itself name misuse of academic authority over students (assessment, supervision, progression) as misconduct.
    Key citations
    Methodology notes and full record
    Rubric level
    Only general conduct or ethics duties (e.g. "act with integrity", "respect students") without identifying misuse of authority over students.
    Complete rationale
    The national framework contains general ethics and dignity duties and delegates the definition of ethical offences to institutions. It does not itself name misuse of academic authority over students (assessment, supervision, progression) as misconduct. The horizontal prohibition of harassment in education could support a "2" (specific abuses prohibited), but it is not specific to teacher-student relations or to academic authority; as two levels are plausible, the lower level is assigned. Harassment under the Anti-Discrimination Act is tied to protected grounds, which is the substantive reason it does not amount to a prohibition of misuse of academic authority as such.
    Gaps and uncertainty
    The National Council's minimum ethical principles referred to in Article 55(4) were not located or reviewed; they may contain more specific content. The Criminal Code (e.g. provisions on sexual harassment) was not reviewed.
    Reviewed
    Correct this finding or add a source on GitHub
  • S02 Explicit anti-retaliation protection Provisional
    Provisional — awaiting verification Medium confidence

    QuestionAre students who report concerns, complain or act as witnesses expressly protected against retaliation, including academic retaliation?

    Provisional. Not yet verified by a human reviewer. May change.

    Finding
    The Anti-Discrimination Act provides that no one may be placed in a less favourable position for having reported discrimination in good faith, witnessed it, refused a discriminatory instruction, or participated in discrimination proceedings; the Act applies to the field of education and science. The Whistleblower Act prohibits retaliation against reporters, but defines a reporter as a person reporting irregularities learned of in their work-related context, described as professional activities (employees, self-employed, volunteers, trainees and similar).
    Source location
    ZSD Articles 7 and 8(2); ZZPN Article 6(3), 6(5), 6(9) and Article 9
    Rationale in brief
    General anti-victimisation protection exists and would cover a student reporting discrimination or harassment, but it is limited to discrimination-related reports, does not address academic retaliation (grades, supervision, references) and is not a higher-education-specific rule.
    Key citations
    Methodology notes and full record
    Rubric level
    General whistleblower or anti-victimisation protection exists, but its application to students raising concerns about academic staff is unclear or indirect.
    Complete rationale
    General anti-victimisation protection exists and would cover a student reporting discrimination or harassment, but it is limited to discrimination-related reports, does not address academic retaliation (grades, supervision, references) and is not a higher-education-specific rule. The whistleblower regime appears not to reach students acting as students (only possibly those in a work-related context such as trainees or employed assistants). No express national prohibition of retaliation against student complainants in general was identified, so "2" is not met.
    Gaps and uncertainty
    No provision in the Act on Higher Education or the Student Council Act on retaliation against complainants was identified. Whether student trainees or teaching assistants fall within the Whistleblower Act's personal scope in particular situations was not analysed.
    Reviewed
    Correct this finding or add a source on GitHub
  • S03 Independent complaint mechanism Provisional
    Provisional — awaiting verification Medium confidence

    QuestionCan a student complain to a body that is independent of the academic unit and of the person complained about?

    Provisional. Not yet verified by a human reviewer. May change.

    Finding
    Each higher education institution must have a student ombudsperson, appointed by the student council for one year (renewable once) from among students; the ombudsperson receives student complaints about their rights and discusses them with the competent bodies of the institution, advises students and may take part in disciplinary proceedings against students. Students have a statutory right to complain about violations of rights under the Act and institutional acts. Each institution must also establish an ethics committee. For discrimination, including harassment and sexual harassment, the People's Ombudsperson and the Gender Equality Ombudsperson receive and examine individual reports.
    Source location
    ZSZSO Article 17; ZVOZD Articles 55(1), 77(1)(8); ZSD Article 12; ZRS Article 19
    Rationale in brief
    A complaint officer that does not depend on the academic unit's line management exists at every institution (student ombudsperson, appointed by the student council), and specialised external bodies exist for discrimination.
    Key citations
    Methodology notes and full record
    Rubric level
    A complaint body or officer outside the academic unit exists (e.g. university-level ethics committee, student ombudsperson), but its independence, powers or scope are not fully set out.
    Complete rationale
    A complaint officer that does not depend on the academic unit's line management exists at every institution (student ombudsperson, appointed by the student council), and specialised external bodies exist for discrimination. However, the ombudsperson's independence guarantees, investigative powers and mandate over staff-student conduct complaints are not set out (the role is to receive complaints and discuss them with institutional bodies), and the procedure for the statutory right to complain is not defined nationally, so "3" is not met.
    Gaps and uncertainty
    Because a faculty can itself be a "visoko učilište", the ombudsperson may sit within the same unit as the staff member complained about; separation is by appointment route rather than by level. The Ombudsperson Act (general maladministration mandate) was not opened, so that route is not scored here.
    Reviewed
    Correct this finding or add a source on GitHub
  • S04 Conflict-of-interest and recusal rules Provisional
    Provisional — awaiting verification Low confidence

    QuestionMust people who decide on complaints, assessments or appeals step aside where they have a conflict of interest, including where they are the subject of the complaint?

    Provisional. Not yet verified by a human reviewer. May change.

    Finding
    The Act on Higher Education applies the General Administrative Procedure Act to procedures deciding on the rights and obligations of students. That Act requires exclusion of an official who is a party, witness or close relative, requires exclusion from second-instance proceedings of anyone who took part at first instance, allows exclusion for close personal or business relationships, discriminatory treatment or other doubts about impartiality, and provides that the head of the body (or the second-instance or supervisory body for the head) decides, including on a party's request. The AZVO re-accreditation standard expects fair and impartial conduct of procedures sanctioning unethical behaviour and discrimination.
    Source location
    ZVOZD Article 5(3); ZUP Article 24(1)-(6); AZVO Standard 1.4
    Rationale in brief
    At minimum, a general statutory recusal regime applies to decisions on students' rights through Article 5(3) of the Act on Higher Education (level 1).
    Key citations
    Methodology notes and full record
    Rubric level
    General conflict-of-interest duty without application to complaint, assessment or appeal decisions.
    Complete rationale
    At minimum, a general statutory recusal regime applies to decisions on students' rights through Article 5(3) of the Act on Higher Education (level 1). Whether it extends to complaints about staff conduct, ethics proceedings or grade reviews, which would support level 2 or 3, is not established by the national texts, so the lower level is assigned.
    Gaps and uncertainty
    No express recusal rule for examiners, ethics committee members or disciplinary committee members in the Act on Higher Education was identified. Case law of the administrative courts on whether exam grades and complaint outcomes are administrative acts was not reviewed.
    Reviewed
    Correct this finding or add a source on GitHub
  • S05 Interim protective measures Provisional
    Provisional — awaiting verification Low confidence

    QuestionWhile a complaint is being handled, can measures be taken to protect the student's education (e.g. change of examiner, supervisor, group)?

    Provisional. Not yet verified by a human reviewer. May change.

    Finding
    In anti-discrimination court proceedings the court may, on a party's proposal, order interim measures before or during proceedings where the applicant makes a violation of equal treatment probable and the measure is needed to avert irreparable harm or prevent violence. The General Administrative Procedure Act allows a temporary decision regulating disputed matters before a procedure ends.
    Source location
    ZSD Article 19(1)-(2); ZUP Article 100(3)
    Rationale
    Interim protection is available only in general terms (court measures in discrimination cases; a generic power to issue temporary administrative decisions). No specific academic interim measures (change of examiner, supervisor or group) were identified in the higher education legislation, so "2" is not met.
    Key citations
    Methodology notes and full record
    Rubric level
    Interim measures are mentioned in general terms or at the discretion of management with no criteria.
    Gaps and uncertainty
    No interim-measures provision in the Act on Higher Education, the Student Council Act or the AZVO standards was identified. Whether court interim measures could order academic arrangements in practice was not examined.
    Reviewed
    Correct this finding or add a source on GitHub
  • S06 Procedural deadlines Provisional
    Provisional — awaiting verification Low confidence

    QuestionAre there binding deadlines for acknowledging, investigating and deciding complaints?

    Provisional. Not yet verified by a human reviewer. May change.

    Finding
    Under the General Administrative Procedure Act a decision on a party's request must be issued and delivered within 30 days (direct decision) or 60 days (where an examination procedure is conducted), and if the deadline is missed the party may appeal or bring an administrative dispute. The Anti-Discrimination Act requires courts and other bodies conducting proceedings to act urgently on discrimination claims.
    Source location
    ZVOZD Article 5(3); ZUP Article 101(1)-(3); ZSD Article 16(3)
    Rationale in brief
    A general duty of urgency exists for discrimination proceedings (Anti-Discrimination Act Article 16(3)), which meets level 1.
    Key citations
    Methodology notes and full record
    Rubric level
    Only a general duty to act "without delay" or "promptly".
    Complete rationale
    A general duty of urgency exists for discrimination proceedings (Anti-Discrimination Act Article 16(3)), which meets level 1. Binding deadlines with an escalation route under the General Administrative Procedure Act would support a higher level if staff-conduct complaints are administrative matters, which is not established by the texts reviewed.
    Gaps and uncertainty
    No deadline specific to student complaints, ethics committee or disciplinary procedures was identified in national higher education legislation. Whether the administrative procedure deadlines apply to such complaints is unresolved.
    Reviewed
    Correct this finding or add a source on GitHub
  • S07 Written, reasoned decisions Provisional
    Provisional — awaiting verification Low confidence

    QuestionDoes the complainant receive a written decision stating the reasons?

    Provisional. Not yet verified by a human reviewer. May change.

    Finding
    Administrative decisions must be in writing and contain a statement of reasons (facts established, reasons for assessing evidence and for rejecting requests) and an instruction on legal remedies stating whether an appeal or administrative dispute is available, to which body, by when and how.
    Source location
    ZVOZD Article 5(3); ZUP Articles 96, 97(1), 98(1), 98(5)-(6)
    Rationale in brief
    These requirements would meet the elements of "3" for decisions in which the student is a party, but the sources reviewed do not establish that the outcome of a complaint about staff conduct (e.g. an ethics committee finding forwarded to the head of institution under ZVOZD Article 55(3)) is an administrative decision delivered to the complainant.
    Key citations
    Methodology notes and full record
    What ? means
    Research was carried out, but the available sources did not allow a responsible score.
    Complete rationale
    These requirements would meet the elements of "3" for decisions in which the student is a party, but the sources reviewed do not establish that the outcome of a complaint about staff conduct (e.g. an ethics committee finding forwarded to the head of institution under ZVOZD Article 55(3)) is an administrative decision delivered to the complainant. The level cannot be responsibly assigned.
    Gaps and uncertainty
    No national provision on informing a student complainant of the outcome of an ethics or disciplinary procedure was identified.
    Reviewed
    Complete sources reviewed (4)

    All 2 key citations shown above are included in this complete record.

    Correct this finding or add a source on GitHub
  • S08 Appeal or independent review Provisional
    Provisional — awaiting verification Medium confidence

    QuestionCan the complainant challenge the outcome before a different body?

    Provisional. Not yet verified by a human reviewer. May change.

    Finding
    External routes exist: the People's Ombudsperson and the Gender Equality Ombudsperson examine discrimination reports and may conduct mediation; a person claiming discrimination may sue for a declaration, cessation and removal of consequences, and damages. Where administrative procedure applies, a first-instance decision may be appealed to a second-instance body and an administrative dispute brought. The AZVO standard on assessment expects a formally defined appeals procedure of which students are informed.
    Source location
    ZSD Articles 12(2), 17; ZRS Article 19(2); ZUP Articles 105, 122(4); AZVO Standard 3.2
    Rationale in brief
    Nationally there is no defined internal appeal to a different body against the outcome of a complaint about staff conduct; available routes are general external remedies (courts) and ombudspersons limited to discrimination.
    Key citations
    Methodology notes and full record
    Rubric level
    Review only by the same body that decided, or only general external remedies (e.g. courts) with no internal route.
    Complete rationale
    Nationally there is no defined internal appeal to a different body against the outcome of a complaint about staff conduct; available routes are general external remedies (courts) and ombudspersons limited to discrimination. The AZVO appeals element concerns assessment and is an evaluation expectation rather than a defined route. A "2" (specialised external body) is arguable for discrimination cases only; the lower level is assigned.
    Gaps and uncertainty
    Applicability of the administrative appeal route to complaint outcomes is unresolved (see S04, S06, S07). The general mandate of the People's Ombudsperson over public higher education institutions was not verified.
    Reviewed
    Correct this finding or add a source on GitHub
  • S09 Proportionate consequences for misconduct Provisional
    Provisional — awaiting verification Medium confidence

    QuestionAre there graduated, defined consequences for staff found to have misused academic authority?

    Provisional. Not yet verified by a human reviewer. May change.

    Finding
    Staff are disciplinarily liable for breaches of work duties and for damaging the institution's reputation. Each institution must establish a disciplinary committee and adopt a rulebook setting out disciplinary offences, sanctions and procedure; disciplinary liability may lead to termination of the employment contract, and only offences and sanctions prescribed in the rulebook at the time may be punished. An ethics committee decision finding a breach of the ethics code is sent to the head of institution, who must act under the disciplinary rulebook.
    Source location
    ZVOZD Articles 55(3), 56(1)-(5)
    Rationale in brief
    The national framework mandates a disciplinary system and links ethics breaches to it, but does not itself set a graduated scale, proportionality criteria or any express link to misconduct towards students; these are left entirely to institutional rulebooks.
    Key citation
    Methodology notes and full record
    Rubric level
    Consequences exist only through general employment law, with no link to misconduct towards students.
    Complete rationale
    The national framework mandates a disciplinary system and links ethics breaches to it, but does not itself set a graduated scale, proportionality criteria or any express link to misconduct towards students; these are left entirely to institutional rulebooks. It is more than bare employment law, but the "2" element (a scale applying to misconduct towards students) is not provided at national level, so the lower level is assigned.
    Gaps and uncertainty
    The Labour Act and collective agreements were not reviewed. No national power to restrict a staff member's authority over affected students was identified.
    Reviewed
    Correct this finding or add a source on GitHub
  • S10 Remediation of academic harm Provisional
    Provisional — awaiting verification Medium confidence

    QuestionWhere misconduct affected a student's academic record, can the harm be repaired (e.g. re-assessment, annulment of a tainted grade, extension, new supervisor)?

    Provisional. Not yet verified by a human reviewer. May change.

    Finding
    Institutions must regulate by general act the rules on exams, complaints against a grade ("prigovoru na ocjenu" - objection to a grade), the procedure for repeating an exam, and the right to inspect exam results. In discrimination cases a court may order actions removing discrimination or its consequences.
    Source location
    ZVOZD Article 71(6); ZSD Article 17(1)(2)
    Rationale in brief
    A general right to challenge a grade and repeat an exam exists (with details delegated to institutions), but it is not linked to misconduct findings and no listed remedies (re-assessment by a different examiner, annulment, extension, change of supervisor) were identified.
    Key citations
    Methodology notes and full record
    Rubric level
    General right to request re-examination or grade review, not linked to misconduct findings.
    Complete rationale
    A general right to challenge a grade and repeat an exam exists (with details delegated to institutions), but it is not linked to misconduct findings and no listed remedies (re-assessment by a different examiner, annulment, extension, change of supervisor) were identified. Court-ordered removal of consequences is general and not academic-specific, so "2" is not met.
    Gaps and uncertainty
    A right to change mentor was seen in the Act's provisions on staff collaborators (suradnici); it applies to employees, not students, and was not relied on. No national rule on changing a doctoral student's supervisor after misconduct was identified.
    Reviewed
    Correct this finding or add a source on GitHub
  • S11 Professional-boundary and safeguarding training Provisional
    Provisional — awaiting verification Medium confidence

    QuestionAre staff with authority over students required to receive training on professional boundaries, harassment and fair use of authority?

    Not identified, provisional. The ASE rubric requires a second review before a "not identified" finding is treated as final. That review has not happened yet. This is not a finding that the safeguard is absent.

    Finding
    No national requirement, and no express recommendation directed at staff with authority over students, to receive training on professional boundaries, harassment or fair use of authority was identified. AZVO Standard 3.2 expects support for those who assess students in developing assessment skills. The evidence list for Standard 1.4 refers to reports on education ("edukacije") to prevent unethical behaviour, intolerance and discrimination as an example source; these lists are expressly examples only. The Gender Equality Act makes gender-equality content part of higher education curricula.
    Source location
    ZVOZD Articles 55-56; AZVO Standards 1.4 and 3.2; ZRS Article 14
    Rationale in brief
    The references found concern assessment methodology, curriculum content, or examples of evidence an institution may present.
    Key citations
    Methodology notes and full record
    Rubric level
    No training provision identified.
    What 0 means
    No qualifying provision was identified in the sources reviewed. This is not proof that no safeguard exists.
    Complete rationale
    The references found concern assessment methodology, curriculum content, or examples of evidence an institution may present. The AZVO example was considered and judged insufficient for level 1, because it neither requires nor expressly recommends training on boundaries, harassment or anti-retaliation for staff with authority over students. No qualifying provision was identified in the sources reviewed.
    Gaps and uncertainty
    The National Council's minimum ethical principles, the Quality Assurance Act and any national ethics guidance were not reviewed. An independent cross-check agreed with this result; human second review is still required before it can be treated as verified.
    Reviewed
    Complete sources reviewed (5)

    All 3 key citations shown above are included in this complete record.

    Correct this finding or add a source on GitHub
  • S12 Academic Authority Safeguarding Review Provisional
    Provisional — awaiting verification Medium confidence

    QuestionBefore or while holding roles with substantial authority over students (e.g. doctoral supervisor, programme head), is professional conduct relevant to that authority reviewed?

    Provisional. Not yet verified by a human reviewer. May change.

    Finding
    Appointment of teachers and scientists depends on the required degree, the National University, Scientific and Artistic Criteria (or national college criteria) and institutional additional criteria, assessed by an expert committee. Re-election every five years requires fulfilling half of the national and additional criteria for promotion since the last election. The procedure for application, assessment and defence of doctoral theses is left to university statutes or general acts. Under the National University, Scientific and Artistic Criteria, promotion and re-election also require positively evaluated teaching quality or student survey results (Article 4(9)); no criterion concerns ethical record or upheld complaints.
    Source location
    ZVOZD Articles 39(1), 40(6), 42(1)-(5), 43(5), 62(6); National Criteria (NN 42/2026) Article 4(9)
    Rationale in brief
    National appointment and re-election criteria refer to academic, scientific and teaching qualifications, including teaching quality or student survey results.
    Key citations
    Methodology notes and full record
    Rubric level
    Appointment criteria for authority roles refer only to academic or research qualifications.
    Complete rationale
    National appointment and re-election criteria refer to academic, scientific and teaching qualifications, including teaching quality or student survey results. These measure teaching quality rather than professional conduct as defined for level 2, and no national rule requires review of conduct (e.g. upheld complaints or ethical record) for roles with authority over students, including doctoral supervision. This matches level 1.
    Gaps and uncertainty
    Institutional additional criteria and doctoral supervisor rules are outside national scope.
    Methodology note
    This concerns professional conduct relevant to positions of authority: supervisory boundaries, conflict management, assessment responsibilities, anti-retaliation obligations. It is not a psychiatric or medical evaluation and never concerns health, political views, protected beliefs or private traits unrelated to professional duties.
    Reviewed
    Correct this finding or add a source on GitHub

National framework

National framework

Summary of the laws and regulators reviewed (220 words).

Read the national framework summary

Croatia's Act on Higher Education and Scientific Activity (NN 119/2022) sets general duties for members of the academic community to respect the dignity of every person, and requires each higher education institution to establish an ethics committee, adopt an ethics code defining ethical offences and sanctioning procedures, establish a disciplinary committee and adopt a disciplinary rulebook for staff; the content of these instruments is left to institutions. Students have a statutory right to complain about violations of their rights and each institution must have a student ombudsperson (a student appointed by the student council under the 2007 Student Council Act), whose role is advisory and mediating. The Act declares the General Administrative Procedure Act applicable to procedures deciding on students' rights and obligations, which would bring recusal, deadline, reasoned-decision and appeal rules, but whether complaints about staff conduct fall within that route is not settled by the texts reviewed. Horizontal anti-discrimination and gender equality legislation prohibits harassment and sexual harassment (including in education), protects against victimisation for reporting discrimination and provides external routes to the People's Ombudsperson, the Gender Equality Ombudsperson and the courts. The national re-accreditation standards of the Agency for Science and Higher Education expect institutions to prevent and sanction unethical behaviour and discrimination through fair and impartial procedures and to operate a formal appeals procedure on assessment.

This summary describes published legal and regulatory texts. It does not describe how they are applied in practice.

What counts as national rules

“National framework” here means legislation, regulations and national quality-assurance standards reviewed by ASE; each finding's sources show which is which. Accreditation standards are expectations, not statutory duties. Institutions may provide more.

Where national findings come from
  1. National law Acts and regulations Assessed here
  2. Regulator and quality-assurance standards Expectations, not statutory duties Assessed here
  3. University rules Statutes, codes, complaint procedures; may add more On institution profiles

Institutions

Institutions researched

University of Zagreb

Sveučilište u Zagrebu

Provisional 12/12 researched · 0 verified

Evidence gaps

Known evidence gaps (7)

What this research round did not locate, open or resolve.

Show 7 evidence gaps
  • The National Council's minimum ethical principles (ZVOZD Article 55(4)) were not located; whether they have been adopted and what they contain is unknown.
  • The Act on Quality Assurance in Higher Education and Science (NN 151/22) was not opened; only the AZVO re-accreditation standards adopted under it were reviewed.
  • The People's Ombudsperson Act and the Gender Equality Ombudsperson's general mandate over public higher education institutions were not opened.
  • The Labour Act (worker dignity and harassment procedures) was not reviewed; such procedures typically protect employees rather than students and would not raise scores under the rubric's student-complainant rule.
  • The Criminal Code provisions on sexual harassment and abuse of position were not reviewed.
  • Official gazette versions of the Student Council Act, Anti-Discrimination Act, Gender Equality Act and General Administrative Procedure Act were not opened; unofficial zakon.hr consolidations were used.
  • Administrative and constitutional court case law on whether exam grades and complaint outcomes are administrative acts was not reviewed.
Researcher notes

Unresolved questions: (1) whether Article 5(3) of the Act on Higher Education brings student complaints about staff conduct, ethics proceedings and grade reviews under the General Administrative Procedure Act, which determines S07 and could raise S04, S06 and S08; (2) whether the student ombudsperson is sufficiently separate from the academic unit where the institution is a faculty; (3) whether the Whistleblower Act can cover students in any capacity; (4) how general anti-discrimination law should count towards S01 and S08 across countries — a methodology question for v0.2.

Sources

Sources (8)

  • 6 Legislation
  • 1 Regulation
  • 1 Standard
Show all 8 citations
  • Zakon o visokom obrazovanju i znanstvenoj djelatnosti (Act on Higher Education and Scientific Activity). Croatian Parliament (Hrvatski sabor). NN 119/2022. Legislation, 2022-10-14. Accessed 2026-09-13. [hr-zvozd-2022]
    Official gazette text. The unofficial consolidated version on zakon.hr (https://www.zakon.hr/z/3328/zakon-o-visokom-obrazovanju-i-znanstvenoj-djelatnosti), whose database was stated to be updated to NN 95/26 on 2026-09-07, lists only NN 119/22 (in force from 2022-10-22), i.e. no amendments were shown. Article numbers below are from the official text.
  • Zakon o suzbijanju diskriminacije (Anti-Discrimination Act). Croatian Parliament (Hrvatski sabor). NN 85/2008, 112/2012. Legislation. Accessed 2026-09-13. Unofficial consolidation [hr-zsd-2008]
    Unofficial consolidated text on zakon.hr (NN 85/08, 112/12). Official gazette versions not opened.
  • Zakon o ravnopravnosti spolova (Gender Equality Act). Croatian Parliament (Hrvatski sabor). NN 82/2008, 69/2017. Legislation. Accessed 2026-09-13. Unofficial consolidation [hr-zrs-2008]
    Unofficial consolidated text on zakon.hr (NN 82/08, 69/17; in force from 2017-07-22). Official gazette versions not opened. Whether a newer gender equality act has been adopted was not separately checked beyond the zakon.hr status shown on the access date.
  • Zakon o zaštiti prijavitelja nepravilnosti (Act on the Protection of Whistleblowers (Reporters of Irregularities)). Croatian Parliament (Hrvatski sabor). NN 46/2022, 136/2025. Legislation, 2022-04-15. Accessed 2026-09-13. [hr-zzpn-2022]
    Official gazette text of the original act. Amended by NN 136/2025 (text viewed at https://www.zakon.hr/c/nn/671302/nn-136-2025-%285.11.2025.%29%2C-zakon-o-izmjenama-i-dopunama-zakona-o-zastiti-prijavitelja-nepravilnosti); the amendment extends material scope, adds protection for reports made directly to police or the State Attorney, sets court deadlines and converts fines to euro, but does not change the Article 6 definitions of reporter and work-related context.
  • Zakon o studentskom zboru i drugim studentskim organizacijama (Act on the Student Council and Other Student Organisations). Croatian Parliament (Hrvatski sabor). NN 71/2007. Legislation. Accessed 2026-09-13. [hr-zszso-2007]
    Official gazette text (NN 71/2007), opened by the verifier; Article 17 matches the unofficial zakon.hr consolidation, which lists no amendments. Legislative proposals for a new student council act were seen in search results but not verified as enacted.
  • Zakon o općem upravnom postupku (General Administrative Procedure Act). Croatian Parliament (Hrvatski sabor). NN 47/2009, 110/2021. Legislation. Accessed 2026-09-13. Unofficial consolidation [hr-zup-2009]
    Unofficial consolidated text on zakon.hr (NN 47/09, 110/21; consolidated version in force from 2022-01-01). Relevant to higher education only through Article 5(3) of the Act on Higher Education and Scientific Activity.
  • Standardi kvalitete za vrednovanje u postupku reakreditacije visokih učilišta (Quality standards for evaluation in the re-accreditation procedure of higher education institutions). Accreditation Council, Agency for Science and Higher Education (Agencija za znanost i visoko obrazovanje, AZVO). KLASA 602-04/23-02/169. Standard, 2023-09-14. Accessed 2026-09-13. [hr-azvo-reaccreditation-standards-2023]
    Adopted by the Accreditation Council on 2023-07-06 under Article 8(3) of the Act on Quality Assurance in Higher Education and Science (NN 151/22); document dated 2023-09-14. The Quality Assurance Act itself was not opened. Standards are evaluation criteria for re-accreditation rather than directly binding conduct rules. The evidence lists attached to each standard are expressly examples only.
  • Nacionalni sveučilišni, znanstveni i umjetnički kriteriji (National University, Scientific and Artistic Criteria). National Council for Higher Education, Science and Technological Development (Nacionalno vijeće za visoko obrazovanje, znanost i tehnološki razvoj). NN 42/2026. Regulation, 2026-04-21. Accessed 2026-09-13. [hr-nsuzk-2026]
    Opened during verification. Article 4(9) makes positively evaluated teaching quality or student survey results a mandatory criterion for promotion and re-election.