Evidence · Findings
Findings, safeguard by safeguard
Research so far covers Croatia’s national framework and the University of Zagreb. For each of the 12 safeguards: what the published rules contain, the passage and article it rests on, and a score from 0 to 3.
All 24 findings are provisional: they were prepared with AI assistance and none has yet been checked by an independent human reviewer. They may change.
How to read a score
- 0 Not identified
- 1 Limited
- 2 Substantial
- 3 Strong
- Unable to assess
Scores describe the rules as published, not how they work in practice. A 0 means no qualifying provision was found in the sources reviewed, which is not proof that none exists. Hatched marks are provisional.
- S01
Definition of abuse of academic authority
Do the rules define misuse of academic authority (assessment, supervision, admission, progression, references, research credit) as a form of misconduct?
CroatiaNational framework
Score 1: Limited
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).
Source location ZVOZD Articles 3(3), 55(1)-(4); ZSD Articles 3 and 8(2); ZRS Article 8
Evidence and reasoning: S01, Croatia
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.
Why this score
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
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.
Full record and sources: S01, CroatiaUniversity of ZagrebInstitution’s own rules
Score 2: Substantial
The Code of Ethics states that members of the university community must not misuse their authority: “ne smiju zlouporabiti svoj autoritet” (“must not misuse their authority”) (Art. 7(2)).
Source location Code of Ethics Art. 7(2), Art. 12(2)-(4), Art. 14(g),(h),(k), Art. 27(2)(a); Statute Art. 10(2),(5), Art. 108
Evidence and reasoning: S01, University of Zagreb
It prohibits harassment and defines sexual harassment to include demanding sexual favours in return for an act or omission from a position of authority (Art. 12(3)). It warns that relationships in direct hierarchical relations involving assessment or decisions on status and advancement may breach the rules on objectivity and conflict of interest (Art. 12(4)). Teachers must ensure valid, fair, objective and timely assessment and transparent exams (Art. 14(g),(h)). They must not make exam access conditional on requirements outside the curriculum, especially ones bringing them personal gain (Art. 14(k)). Misuse of a position of authority to create privileged positions is also disapproved (Art. 27(2)(a)). The 2023 Statute requires members to respect each person's dignity and follow academic ethics (Art. 10(2),(5); Art. 108).
Why this score
Specific abuses by teachers are expressly prohibited: quid-pro-quo harassment from a position of authority, unfair assessment, and improper conditions on exam access. That meets level 2. It is not level 3 because there is no single definition or enumerated list covering misuse of assessment, supervisory and progression powers together. The Code also expressly says its procedures do not decide rights or responsibilities and that opinions do not bind other bodies (Art. 2(3),(5)). Breaches are therefore not directly linked to a disciplinary procedure. Currency caveat: this finding relies on the 2007 Code of Ethics, whose continued legal force after 1 October 2024 could not be confirmed (2023 Statute Art. 129(1)).
Gaps
Supervision of theses and doctoral candidates is not addressed as a distinct area of possible abuse. The Code dates from 2007, and whether it has been aligned with the 2023 Statute is not confirmed.
Full record and sources: S01, University of Zagreb - S02
Explicit anti-retaliation protection
Are students who report concerns, complain or act as witnesses expressly protected against retaliation, including academic retaliation?
CroatiaNational framework
Score 1: Limited
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.
Source location ZSD Articles 7 and 8(2); ZZPN Article 6(3), 6(5), 6(9) and Article 9
Evidence and reasoning: S02, Croatia
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).
Why this score
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
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.
Full record and sources: S02, CroatiaUniversity of ZagrebInstitution’s own rules
Score 1: Limited
Any person may report harassment committed by a member of the university community. The Code states: “Na osobu koja je odbila uznemirivanje ili prijavila takvu vrstu ponašanja ne smije se vršiti nikakav pritisak.”
Source location Code of Ethics Art. 12(5)
Evidence and reasoning: S02, University of Zagreb
(“No pressure may be exerted on a person who rejected harassment or reported such behaviour.”)
Why this score
The protection is express and applies to students, but only to those who reject or report harassment; it does not reach complainants about other misuse of authority or witnesses, so the core of level 2 (protection of student complainants and witnesses) is only partly met. It does not address academic retaliation (grades, supervision, references), treat retaliation as a separate offence, or give a route to report retaliation. Currency caveat: this finding relies on the 2007 Code of Ethics, whose continued legal force after 1 October 2024 could not be confirmed (2023 Statute Art. 129(1)).
Gaps
No university-wide anti-retaliation rule was identified for student complainants or witnesses in general, and none that addresses academic forms of retaliation. The Gender Equality Plan's reference to this rule (section 2.5) is framed around employees.
Full record and sources: S02, University of Zagreb - S03
Independent complaint mechanism
Can a student complain to a body that is independent of the academic unit and of the person complained about?
CroatiaNational framework
Score 2: Substantial
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.
Source location ZSZSO Article 17; ZVOZD Articles 55(1), 77(1)(8); ZSD Article 12; ZRS Article 19
Evidence and reasoning: S03, Croatia
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.
Why this score
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
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.
Full record and sources: S03, CroatiaUniversity of ZagrebInstitution’s own rules
Score 2: Substantial
Each faculty has an ethics committee appointed by its dean with the consent of the faculty council. When a question concerns students, two student members are added (Art. 30).
Source location Code of Ethics Art. 10(5), 29-33, 36; Amendment Decision item III (Art. 35(8)-(10)); Statute Art. 65(3)(23); Student Ombudsperson web page
Evidence and reasoning: S03, University of Zagreb
A university Ethics Council of nine members, including at least one student, is appointed by the rector on the Senate's proposal (Art. 31). University ethics committees may act where a faculty committee does not exist or cannot or will not act (Art. 29(3), 32). Proceedings are started by a request from the dean or rector, on their own initiative or on the proposal of community members (Art. 33(2)). If the dean or rector does not forward a member's proposal within 30 days, the member may go to the Ethics Council, which may itself initiate proceedings before the competent (faculty) ethics committee (Art. 33(4)). Since the 2018 amendment, the committee must verify the allegations to establish the relevant facts (Art. 34(6) as amended). Competent bodies must investigate all reports raising ethical concerns (Art. 10(5)). The Student Ombudsperson, appointed by the Student Council for one-year terms after a public call, works on principles of independence, equal treatment and confidentiality. It receives student complaints, raises them with competent bodies, advises students and may take part in disciplinary proceedings; it acts where a matter cannot be resolved by the faculty student ombudsperson (web page). The Statute gives students a right to complain and to other legal remedies when their rights are violated (Art. 65(3)(23)).
Why this score
Bodies outside the academic unit exist: the university Ethics Council and ad hoc university committees, as well as the Student Ombudsperson. That meets level 2. It is not level 3 because the first-instance body sits within the faculty and is appointed by the dean. Students cannot formally file a request themselves; the dean or rector does, with Ethics Council escalation only after 30 days. Ethics bodies issue non-binding opinions (Art. 2(5)). The Ombudsperson's powers and independence rules are described only on an informational web page. Currency caveat: this finding relies on the 2007 Code of Ethics, whose continued legal force after 1 October 2024 could not be confirmed (2023 Statute Art. 129(1)).
Gaps
No university-wide body with documented independence and a defined mandate to decide staff-student conduct complaints was identified. The rules on the Student Ombudsperson (Student Council Statute) were not reviewed.
Full record and sources: S03, University of Zagreb - S04
Conflict-of-interest and recusal rules
Must 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?
CroatiaNational framework
Score 1: Limited
The Act on Higher Education applies the General Administrative Procedure Act to procedures deciding on the rights and obligations of students.
Source location ZVOZD Article 5(3); ZUP Article 24(1)-(6); AZVO Standard 1.4
Evidence and reasoning: S04, Croatia
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.
Why this score
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
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.
Full record and sources: S04, CroatiaUniversity of ZagrebInstitution’s own rules
Score 1: Limited
The Code of Ethics requires all members to avoid conflicts of interest, giving family ties, close friendship, intimate relationships and antagonisms as examples, and prohibits nepotism (Art. 22).
Source location Code of Ethics Art. 12(4), Art. 22; Doctoral Regulations Art. 2(1)(9); Study Regulations Art. 44
Evidence and reasoning: S04, University of Zagreb
It warns about relationships in hierarchical relations involving assessment (Art. 12(4)). The Doctoral Regulations bar the mentor from sitting on the committees that assess the thesis proposal, assess the thesis and conduct the defence (Art. 2(1)(9)), which also require external committee members. The Study Regulations allow a student dissatisfied with a grade to request re-examination or re-marking before an exam committee, whose composition is left to faculty general acts (Art. 44).
Why this score
A general conflict-of-interest duty exists. The only structural exclusion identified is that of the doctoral mentor from thesis assessment committees, which is an incompatibility rule rather than conflict-based recusal. No rule was identified requiring members of ethics committees or the Ethics Council to step aside where conflicted, including where they are the subject of a complaint. No procedure was identified for a student to request recusal. Level 2 was considered because of the doctoral assessment exclusion, but not assigned: the rule is limited to one assessment type and is not conflict-based. Currency caveat: this finding relies on the 2007 Code of Ethics, whose continued legal force after 1 October 2024 could not be confirmed (2023 Statute Art. 129(1)).
Gaps
No recusal rule was identified for ethics proceedings or appeals, and no rule was identified requiring the original examiner to be excluded from the grade-objection committee. National administrative-procedure recusal rules may apply to formal decisions on student rights, but the university instruments reviewed do not expressly apply them. That question is left to the national-level research.
Full record and sources: S04, University of Zagreb - S05
Interim protective measures
While a complaint is being handled, can measures be taken to protect the student's education (e.g. change of examiner, supervisor, group)?
CroatiaNational framework
Score 1: Limited
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.
Source location ZSD Article 19(1)-(2); ZUP Article 100(3)
Evidence and reasoning: S05, Croatia
The General Administrative Procedure Act allows a temporary decision regulating disputed matters before a procedure ends.
Why this score
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.
Gaps
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.
Full record and sources: S05, CroatiaUniversity of ZagrebInstitution’s own rules
Score 0: Not identified
The ethics procedure (Art. 33-39, as amended in 2018) contains no interim protective measures. The Study Regulations let the dean assign an exam to another teacher when the course teacher is unable to act (Art. 49), but this is not linked to complaints.
Not found in the sources reviewed. Not proof of absence.
Source location Code of Ethics Art. 33-39 (no interim measures); Study Regulations Art. 49; Doctoral Regulations Art. 11(2)
Evidence and reasoning: S05, University of Zagreb
The Doctoral Regulations give doctoral candidates a general right to change mentor on written request, with the current mentor's statement, decided by the competent body and the Senate (Art. 11(2)). This is not framed as an interim measure during a complaint.
Why this score
No provision was identified that allows measures to protect a student's education while a complaint is handled. The substitute-examiner and change-of-mentor provisions are general administrative mechanisms that do not refer to complaints, so they do not reach level 1.
Gaps
No qualifying provision was identified in the sources reviewed. The change-of-mentor right could in practice serve a protective function, but it has no link to complaints, no criteria and no timeframe. Faculty-level rules were not reviewed.
Full record and sources: S05, University of Zagreb - S06
Procedural deadlines
Are there binding deadlines for acknowledging, investigating and deciding complaints?
CroatiaNational framework
Score 1: Limited
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.
Source location ZVOZD Article 5(3); ZUP Article 101(1)-(3); ZSD Article 16(3)
Evidence and reasoning: S06, Croatia
The Anti-Discrimination Act requires courts and other bodies conducting proceedings to act urgently on discrimination claims.
Why this score
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
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.
Full record and sources: S06, CroatiaUniversity of ZagrebInstitution’s own rules
Score 2: Substantial
The committee chair must convene the committee within 30 days of receiving a request (Art. 34(1)). A written opinion is due within 60 days of the request, or at most 90 days where further information was sought.
Source location Code of Ethics Art. 33(4), 34(1), 35(3), 35(7); Amendment Decision item III (Art. 35(8)); Guidelines points 4.2, 4.4, 4.8
Evidence and reasoning: S06, University of Zagreb
These deadlines do not run during holidays and other periods of inactivity (Art. 35(3)). If a committee cannot or will not give an opinion, the chair must inform the requester and the Ethics Council within that deadline, and the Council decides whether to appoint a university committee (Art. 35(7), Art. 29(3)). If the dean or rector does not forward a member's proposal within 30 days, the member may go to the Ethics Council (Art. 33(4)). An appeal must be lodged within 15 days (Art. 35(8)). Under the Guidelines, the appeal procedure should end within 90 days of receiving the documentation, which must be supplied within 30 days (points 4.4, 4.8).
Why this score
Binding deadlines exist for convening the committee and for the written opinion, and there is an escalation route when a request is not forwarded or a committee declines to act. That clearly meets level 2. Level 3 is plausible, but the rules state no consequence or escalation when a committee simply misses the opinion deadline. The deadlines are also suspended during inactive periods, and the appeal-stage deadline appears only in guidance. The lower level is assigned. Currency caveat: this finding relies on the 2007 Code of Ethics, whose continued legal force after 1 October 2024 could not be confirmed (2023 Statute Art. 129(1)).
Gaps
The deadlines govern a procedure that produces non-binding opinions. No deadlines were identified for any disciplinary follow-up or for Student Ombudsperson handling. Deadlines for grade objections are left to faculty acts.
Full record and sources: S06, University of Zagreb - S07
Written, reasoned decisions
Does the complainant receive a written decision stating the reasons?
CroatiaNational framework
Unable to assess
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)
Evidence and reasoning: S07, Croatia
Why this score
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
No national provision on informing a student complainant of the outcome of an ethics or disciplinary procedure was identified.
Full record and sources: S07, CroatiaUniversity of ZagrebInstitution’s own rules
Score 2: Substantial
The opinion must be in writing (Art. 35(3)). It must contain the description of the request, the provisions considered, the committee's position on compliance, the reasons, and whether it was unanimous (Art. 35(4)).
Source location Code of Ethics Art. 35(1),(3),(4), Art. 39(2); Art. 33(2)
Evidence and reasoning: S07, University of Zagreb
It is delivered to the requester, with a copy to the Ethics Council (Art. 35(1)). The formal requester is the dean or rector (Art. 33(2)). Opinions are public and may be shortened or anonymised to protect privacy (Art. 39(2)).
Why this score
Written, reasoned opinions are required. However, the student who raised the concern is not the formal requester and has no express right to receive the opinion; public release of opinions is not delivery to the complainant. The opinion is not required to state the available appeal route. Level 3 is therefore not met. Currency caveat: this finding relies on the 2007 Code of Ethics, whose continued legal force after 1 October 2024 could not be confirmed (2023 Statute Art. 129(1)).
Gaps
No express right for the student initiator to receive the reasoned opinion, and no requirement to state the appeal route and its 15-day deadline in the opinion.
Full record and sources: S07, University of Zagreb - S08
Appeal or independent review
Can the complainant challenge the outcome before a different body?
CroatiaNational framework
Score 1: Limited
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.
Source location ZSD Articles 12(2), 17; ZRS Article 19(2); ZUP Articles 105, 122(4); AZVO Standard 3.2
Evidence and reasoning: S08, Croatia
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.
Why this score
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
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.
Full record and sources: S08, CroatiaUniversity of ZagrebInstitution’s own rules
Score 1: Limited
Since 22 November 2018, the requester and the community member whose conduct was assessed may appeal to the university Ethics Council within 15 days (Art. 35(8)).
Source location Amendment Decision items III-IV (Code Art. 35(8)-(10), Art. 36(k)); Guidelines points 4.1-4.9; Code Art. 10(4), Art. 33(2); Statute Art. 65(3)(23)
Evidence and reasoning: S08, University of Zagreb
The Council may dismiss the appeal as late or filed by an unauthorised person, reject it as unfounded, or uphold it and amend the opinion or return it for a new procedure (Art. 35(9); Guidelines 4.5). The Council appoints a three-member reporting committee (Guidelines 4.6). The Code asks members to try to resolve disputes first within the university, and to go to external bodies only where appropriate and necessary (Art. 10(4)). The Student Ombudsperson web page states that the office does not represent students before external state bodies.
Why this score
An appeal to a different internal body (the Ethics Council) exists with a stated deadline and outcomes, which would point to level 2. However, standing is limited to the formal requester, the dean or rector (Art. 33(2)), and the person assessed. A student complainant who proposed the proceedings has no express right to appeal, and "unauthorised person" is a stated ground for dismissal. No external route is set out in the university rules. Because it is uncertain whether the complainant can use the internal appeal at all, the lower level is assigned, with low confidence. Currency caveat: this finding relies on the 2007 Code of Ethics, whose continued legal force after 1 October 2024 could not be confirmed (2023 Statute Art. 129(1)).
Gaps
No express appeal right for student complainants and no external route set out in university instruments. National remedies (courts, ombudsperson institutions) are left to the national-level research. Grade objections (Study Regulations Art. 44) are an academic-review route, not an appeal against a misconduct outcome.
Full record and sources: S08, University of Zagreb - S09
Proportionate consequences for misconduct
Are there graduated, defined consequences for staff found to have misused academic authority?
CroatiaNational framework
Score 1: Limited
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.
Source location ZVOZD Articles 55(3), 56(1)-(5)
Evidence and reasoning: S09, Croatia
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.
Why this score
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
The Labour Act and collective agreements were not reviewed. No national power to restrict a staff member's authority over affected students was identified.
Full record and sources: S09, CroatiaUniversity of ZagrebInstitution’s own rules
Score 1: Limited
The Statute makes employees subject to disciplinary liability for breaches of work obligations and for damaging the university's reputation, for prescribed disciplinary offences (Art. 110).
Source location Statute Art. 110; Code of Ethics Art. 2(3)-(5), Art. 35(5)
Evidence and reasoning: S09, University of Zagreb
The Code of Ethics says its procedures are not an alternative to civil, criminal, administrative or disciplinary proceedings (Art. 2(3)). Where a breach of the Code entails disciplinary liability under the Statute, general acts may require the ethics committee's opinion to be sought in disciplinary proceedings (Art. 2(4)). An ethics opinion “ne veže druga tijela i nije upravni akt” (“does not bind other bodies and is not an administrative act”) (Art. 2(5)). An adverse opinion may assess the degree of non-compliance and suggest preventive measures (Art. 35(5)).
Why this score
Consequences exist through general employment and disciplinary liability. No university-wide disciplinary scale applying specifically to misconduct towards students was identified in the sources reviewed. The Statute does not list offences or sanctions, and ethics opinions carry no sanctions. Level 2 is not met.
Gaps
The university's staff employment/disciplinary rulebook (Pravilnik o radu) was not reviewed. The Gender Equality Plan refers to Art. 127 of the Pravilnik o radu (Rectorate) for employee dignity complaints; that is a staff-only procedure. No power was identified to restrict a staff member's authority over affected students.
Full record and sources: S09, University of Zagreb - S10
Remediation of academic harm
Where misconduct affected a student's academic record, can the harm be repaired (e.g. re-assessment, annulment of a tainted grade, extension, new supervisor)?
CroatiaNational framework
Score 1: Limited
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.
Source location ZVOZD Article 71(6); ZSD Article 17(1)(2)
Evidence and reasoning: S10, Croatia
In discrimination cases a court may order actions removing discrimination or its consequences.
Why this score
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
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.
Full record and sources: S10, CroatiaUniversity of ZagrebInstitution’s own rules
Score 1: Limited
Students may object to a grade under faculty general acts (Statute Art. 82(13); Study Regulations Art. 44(1)). After an oral exam they may ask for it to be repeated before an exam committee, and after a written exam they may ask an exam committee to re-mark it (Art. 44(2)-(3)).
Source location Study Regulations Art. 43(4), Art. 44; Statute Art. 82(12)-(13); Doctoral Regulations Art. 11(2)
Evidence and reasoning: S10, University of Zagreb
They may also object to assessment in continuous monitoring (Art. 43(4)). Students may inspect their marked written exams (Statute Art. 82(12)). Doctoral candidates may request a change of mentor (Doctoral Regulations Art. 11(2)).
Why this score
General rights to grade review, re-examination and change of mentor exist, but none is linked to a finding of misconduct. This matches level 1. No remedies following misconduct findings were identified.
Gaps
No provision was identified requiring or enabling annulment of tainted grades, re-assessment by a different examiner, extensions or a new supervisor following a misconduct or ethics finding.
Full record and sources: S10, University of Zagreb - S11
Professional-boundary and safeguarding training
Are staff with authority over students required to receive training on professional boundaries, harassment and fair use of authority?
CroatiaNational framework
Score 0: Not identified
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.
Not found in the sources reviewed. Not proof of absence.
Source location ZVOZD Articles 55-56; AZVO Standards 1.4 and 3.2; ZRS Article 14
Evidence and reasoning: S11, Croatia
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.
Why this score
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
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.
Full record and sources: S11, CroatiaUniversity of ZagrebInstitution’s own rules
Score 1: Limited
Before taking on a first doctoral mentorship, a mentor must complete a mentoring workshop run by faculties, the university or recognised international schools (Doctoral Regulations Art. 8(4)).
Source location Doctoral Regulations Art. 8(4); Gender Equality Plan section 2.5, 'Mjere i aktivnosti za Sveučilište' point 2 (pp. 23-24)
Evidence and reasoning: S11, University of Zagreb
The workshop's content is not specified. A planned measure adopted in the Rectorate Gender Equality Plan provides for awareness-raising and education for all Rectorate employees, heads of services and management on bullying, harassment and sexual harassment. This is framed as a planned measure for the Rectorate, not a requirement for teaching staff.
Why this score
A mandatory workshop exists for new doctoral mentors, which on its face resembles level 2. However, nothing in the source indicates that it covers professional boundaries, harassment or fair use of authority. The harassment training in the Gender Equality Plan is a planned measure, limited to Rectorate staff and not required for staff with assessment authority. Since it cannot be confirmed that any required training addresses this safeguard's subject matter, the lower level is assigned, with low confidence.
Gaps
The mentor workshop's curriculum and frequency are not set out. No university-wide training requirement on boundaries, harassment or anti-retaliation was identified for teachers and examiners. Implementation of the Plan's measures is not documented in the sources reviewed.
Full record and sources: S11, University of Zagreb - S12
Academic Authority Safeguarding Review
Before or while holding roles with substantial authority over students (e.g. doctoral supervisor, programme head), is professional conduct relevant to that authority reviewed?
CroatiaNational framework
Score 1: Limited
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.
Source location ZVOZD Articles 39(1), 40(6), 42(1)-(5), 43(5), 62(6); National Criteria (NN 42/2026) Article 4(9)
Evidence and reasoning: S12, Croatia
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.
Why this score
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
Institutional additional criteria and doctoral supervisor rules are outside national scope.
Full record and sources: S12, CroatiaUniversity of ZagrebInstitution’s own rules
Score 1: Limited
A doctoral mentor must hold at least an assistant professor or research associate position, or an equivalent. The mentor must also be an active researcher or artist in the field, with publications or performed works in the last five years (Art. 8(1)-(2)).
Source location Doctoral Regulations Art. 8(1)-(3), Art. 16(3)-(4); Code of Ethics Art. 19(5)
Evidence and reasoning: S12, University of Zagreb
The Senate appoints mentors on the proposal of the field council and study provider (Art. 8(3)). The proposal committee assesses the proposed mentor's competencies (Art. 16(3)-(4)). The Code of Ethics requires a statement of originality of work on election or re-election to academic ranks (Art. 19(5)).
Why this score
The appointment criteria for mentors refer only to academic and research qualifications and activity, which is level 1. The originality statement concerns research integrity, not conduct towards students. No consideration of prior upheld complaints or ethical record was identified for authority roles.
Gaps
No university-wide procedure was identified for reviewing conduct relevant to supervision or assessment on appointment or periodically, and none for limiting authority where concerns are upheld.
Full record and sources: S12, University of Zagreb