StudentSafe EuropeStudent protection in higher education

Public university · Croatia

University of Zagreb

Sveučilište u Zagrebu

Status
All safeguards researched
Reviewed
Coverage
12/12 researched
Verification
0 verified · 12 provisional
Institution results, S01–S12

12 of 12 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.

University-wide rules only. Faculty rules may add protections. Formal policy is not proof of practice, and missing evidence is not proof of absence.

Record details
Country
Croatia
Official website
www.unizg.hr
Research status
All safeguards researched · all findings provisional
Last reviewed
Methodology
Methodology v0.1
Coverage
12 of 12 safeguards researched · 0 verified · 12 provisional
Human verification
Not yet carried out
Research confidence
Medium confidence
Corrections
No correction requests
Data file
data/institutions/hr/unizg.yml

Summary

Summary of published safeguards

The University of Zagreb's university-wide safeguards rest mainly on its Code of Ethics (2007, amended 2018), which prohibits harassment and misuse of authority. It sets out a procedure before ethics committees, with deadlines, written reasoned opinions and an appeal to the university Ethics Council. However, ethics opinions are expressly non-binding. Proceedings are formally requested by the dean or rector, not directly by a student, and the Code does not itself set disciplinary consequences. A Student Ombudsperson, appointed by the Student Council, receives complaints about student rights and mediates, but it has no decision-making powers set out in the sources reviewed. No university-wide rules were identified on interim academic protective measures, retaliation beyond harassment reports, remedies for academic harm linked to misconduct findings, or conduct review for supervisory roles. Most of these findings depend on the 2007 Code of Ethics, whose continued legal force after 1 October 2024 could not be confirmed.

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

Findings

Safeguard profile

Select a safeguard for evidence, source and rationale.

  • 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 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)). 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).
    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
    Rationale in brief
    Specific abuses by teachers are expressly prohibited: quid-pro-quo harassment from a position of authority, unfair assessment, and improper conditions on exam access.
    Key citations
    Methodology notes and full record
    Rubric level
    Misuse of authority over students is expressly named as misconduct, or specific abuses (e.g. discriminatory assessment, harassment by teachers) are prohibited, but without a definition covering assessment, supervision and progression decisions together.
    Complete rationale
    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 and uncertainty
    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.
    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
    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." ("No pressure may be exerted on a person who rejected harassment or reported such behaviour.")
    Source location
    Code of Ethics Art. 12(5)
    Rationale in brief
    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.
    Key citation
    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
    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 and uncertainty
    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.
    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 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). 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)).
    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
    Rationale in brief
    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.
    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
    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 and uncertainty
    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.
    Reviewed
    Correct this finding or add a source on GitHub
  • S04 Conflict-of-interest and recusal rules Provisional
    Provisional — awaiting verification Medium 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 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). 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).
    Source location
    Code of Ethics Art. 12(4), Art. 22; Doctoral Regulations Art. 2(1)(9); Study Regulations Art. 44
    Rationale in brief
    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.
    Key citations
    Methodology notes and full record
    Rubric level
    General conflict-of-interest duty without application to complaint, assessment or appeal decisions.
    Complete rationale
    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 and uncertainty
    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.
    Reviewed
    Correct this finding or add a source on GitHub
  • S05 Interim protective measures Provisional
    Provisional — awaiting verification Medium confidence

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

    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
    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. 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.
    Source location
    Code of Ethics Art. 33-39 (no interim measures); Study Regulations Art. 49; Doctoral Regulations Art. 11(2)
    Rationale
    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.
    Key citations
    Methodology notes and full record
    Rubric level
    No interim measures provision identified.
    What 0 means
    No qualifying provision was identified in the sources reviewed. This is not proof that no safeguard exists.
    Gaps and uncertainty
    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.
    Reviewed
    Complete sources reviewed (8)

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

    Correct this finding or add a source on GitHub
  • S06 Procedural deadlines Provisional
    Provisional — awaiting verification Medium confidence

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

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

    Finding
    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. 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).
    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
    Rationale in brief
    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.
    Key citations
    Methodology notes and full record
    Rubric level
    A binding deadline exists for at least one stage (e.g. decision), but not for the whole procedure.
    Complete rationale
    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 and uncertainty
    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.
    Reviewed
    Correct this finding or add a source on GitHub
  • S07 Written, reasoned decisions Provisional
    Provisional — awaiting verification Medium confidence

    QuestionDoes the complainant receive a written decision stating the reasons?

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

    Finding
    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)). 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)).
    Source location
    Code of Ethics Art. 35(1),(3),(4), Art. 39(2); Art. 33(2)
    Rationale in brief
    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.
    Key citations
    Methodology notes and full record
    Rubric level
    Written decisions are required, but reasons are not required, or the complainant is not entitled to receive them.
    Complete rationale
    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 and uncertainty
    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.
    Reviewed
    Correct this finding or add a source on GitHub
  • S08 Appeal or independent review Provisional
    Provisional — awaiting verification Low confidence

    QuestionCan the complainant challenge the outcome before a different body?

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

    Finding
    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)). 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.
    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)
    Rationale in brief
    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.
    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
    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 and uncertainty
    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.
    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
    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). 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)).
    Source location
    Statute Art. 110; Code of Ethics Art. 2(3)-(5), Art. 35(5)
    Rationale
    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.
    Key citations
    Methodology notes and full record
    Rubric level
    Consequences exist only through general employment law, with no link to misconduct towards students.
    Gaps and uncertainty
    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.
    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
    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)). 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)).
    Source location
    Study Regulations Art. 43(4), Art. 44; Statute Art. 82(12)-(13); Doctoral Regulations Art. 11(2)
    Rationale
    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.
    Key citations
    Methodology notes and full record
    Rubric level
    General right to request re-examination or grade review, not linked to misconduct findings.
    Gaps and uncertainty
    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.
    Reviewed
    Correct this finding or add a source on GitHub
  • S11 Professional-boundary and safeguarding training Provisional
    Provisional — awaiting verification Low confidence

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

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

    Finding
    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)). 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.
    Source location
    Doctoral Regulations Art. 8(4); Gender Equality Plan section 2.5, 'Mjere i aktivnosti za Sveučilište' point 2 (pp. 23-24)
    Rationale in brief
    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.
    Key citations
    Methodology notes and full record
    Rubric level
    Training is recommended or offered, but not required.
    Complete rationale
    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 and uncertainty
    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.
    Reviewed
    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
    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)). 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)).
    Source location
    Doctoral Regulations Art. 8(1)-(3), Art. 16(3)-(4); Code of Ethics Art. 19(5)
    Rationale
    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.
    Key citations
    Methodology notes and full record
    Rubric level
    Appointment criteria for authority roles refer only to academic or research qualifications.
    Gaps and uncertainty
    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.
    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

Evidence gaps

Known evidence gaps

Show 14 evidence gaps · 7 unresolved questions
  • No university-wide harassment rulebook or protocol applicable to students was identified. The Gender Equality Plan (section 2.5) provides, as planned measures, that a special university committee prepare instructions, an online reporting form and a standing protection mechanism, but no adopted instrument was found in the regulations lists reviewed.
  • The ethics system produces non-binding opinions (Code Art. 2(5)), and students cannot formally start proceedings themselves (Art. 33(2)).
  • No interim protective measures, no remedies for academic harm linked to misconduct findings, and no conduct review for supervisory roles were identified at university level.
  • Anti-retaliation protection is limited to people who reject or report harassment (Code Art. 12(5)).
  • No recusal rule was identified for members of ethics bodies.
  • Staff disciplinary offences and sanctions are not set out in the Statute (Art. 110). The relevant employment rulebook was not reviewed.
  • Many student-protection details (grade-objection deadlines, exam committee composition, harassment procedures) are delegated to faculty general acts. Faculty-level rules exist but were outside scope; search results indicated faculty-level harassment rules at, for example, the Faculty of Law, the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences and the Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering. These were not opened or assessed.

Unresolved questions

  • Unresolved: Currency of the Code of Ethics. The published text is the 2007 Code (2009 print) with separate 2018 amendments. It was adopted under the 2005 Statute, and Statute 2023 Art. 129 required general acts to be aligned by 1 October 2024. Whether a new or consolidated Code has been adopted could not be confirmed from the regulations page.
  • Unresolved: Whether a student who proposes ethics proceedings counts as "podnositelj zahtjeva" (requester) with a right to receive the opinion and to appeal. The text points to the dean or rector as the formal requester (Art. 33(2)); practice was not researched.
  • Unresolved: The Student Ombudsperson's governing rules (Student Council Statute, reported as adopted October 2024; Art. 66 is cited on the Student Council page for the nomination procedure) were not opened. Independence, powers and deadlines are taken only from the university's informational web page.
  • Unresolved: The Senate decision appointing the Ethics Council (18 February 2020) and the Ethics Council's annual reports are listed on the Senate decisions page but were not opened.
  • Unresolved: The staff rulebook (Pravilnik o radu), including Art. 127 on employee dignity complaints cited in the Gender Equality Plan, was not reviewed. The dignity-complaint procedure described there appears to be staff-only.
  • Unresolved: Contents of the mandatory doctoral mentor workshop (Doctoral Regulations Art. 8(4)) are not documented in the sources reviewed.
  • Unresolved: The Gender Equality Plan was read only in part (table of contents and pp. 22-24), because it is a scanned PDF with no text layer.

Sources

Sources (8)

  • 3 Regulation
  • 2 Guidance
  • 1 Institutional statute
  • 1 Policy
  • 1 Code of ethics
Show all 8 citations
  • Etički kodeks Sveučilišta u Zagrebu (Code of Ethics of the University of Zagreb). University of Zagreb (Senate). KLASA: 012-03/07-03/2, URBROJ: 380-07/1-09-5. Code of ethics, 2007-05-18. Accessed 2026-09-13. [hr-unizg-ethics-code-2007]
    Adopted by the Senate on 15 May 2007 under the 2005 Statute. Article 41 says it entered into force on publication, 18 May 2007. The published file is the 2009 print edition. It is still linked from the university regulations page, but it predates the 2023 Statute. No re-adopted or consolidated version was found, so currency relative to the 2023 Statute is not confirmed. The 2018 amendments are published separately (see hr-unizg-ethics-code-amend-2018). Currency caveat: the Code was adopted under the 2005 Statute. Article 129(1) of the 2023 Statute provides that acts adopted under the previous Statute apply until 1 October 2024; no re-adopted Code was found, although the 2007 text remains published on the University's regulations page (checked 2026-09-13). Its continued legal force after that date could not be confirmed.
  • Statut Sveučilišta u Zagrebu (Statute of the University of Zagreb). University of Zagreb (Senate). Institutional statute. Accessed 2026-09-13. [hr-unizg-statute-2023]
    Adopted by the Senate on 21 March 2023 under the Act on Higher Education and Scientific Activity (NN 119/22). The regulations web page lists it as the current statute. Article 129 required university general acts to be aligned with it by 1 October 2024. Text was read via local text extraction of the PDF fetched from unizg.hr.
  • Odluka o izmjenama i dopunama Etičkog kodeksa Sveučilišta u Zagrebu (Decision on Amendments to the Code of Ethics of the University of Zagreb). University of Zagreb (Senate). Klasa: 012-03/18-03/12, Urbroj: 380-020/173-18-3. Regulation, 2018-11-14. Accessed 2026-09-13. [hr-unizg-ethics-code-amend-2018]
    Adopted on 13 November 2018, published 14 November 2018, in force 22 November 2018. The PDF is a scanned image; its two pages were read visually after rendering. It amends Art. 34(2) and (6), adds Art. 35(8)-(10) on appeals, and amends Art. 36. Item I adds representation by proxy for the person whose conduct is examined (Art. 34(2)); item II amends Art. 34(6) so that committees must verify the allegations to establish the relevant facts; items III–IV introduce the appeal to the Ethics Council.
  • Studentski pravobranitelj (Student Ombudsperson (web page)). University of Zagreb. Guidance. Accessed 2026-09-13. [hr-unizg-student-ombudsperson-page]
    Informational web page, not a regulation. States that faculty student ombudspersons are primarily competent and the university Student Ombudsperson acts where a matter cannot be resolved at faculty level. The page lists office holders; ASE does not reproduce personal names.
  • Pravilnik o doktorskim studijima na Sveučilištu u Zagrebu (Regulations on Doctoral Studies at the University of Zagreb). University of Zagreb (Senate). Regulation. Accessed 2026-09-13. [hr-unizg-doctoral-regulations-2024]
    Adopted by the Senate on 24 September 2024. The regulations list gives 1 October 2024 as its date. It sets minimum conditions, and study providers may add further conditions (Art. 1(2)).
  • Pravilnik o studiranju na prijediplomskim i diplomskim studijima Sveučilišta u Zagrebu (Regulations on Undergraduate and Graduate Studies of the University of Zagreb). University of Zagreb (Senate). Regulation. Accessed 2026-09-13. [hr-unizg-study-regulations-2024]
    Adopted by the Senate on 24 May 2024. The regulations list gives 1 October 2024 as its date. Many details, such as grade-objection deadlines and exam committee composition, are left to faculty general acts, which were not reviewed.
  • Smjernice za postupanje etičkih tijela po zaprimljenoj žalbi na mišljenje doneseno u etičkom postupku (Guidelines for ethics bodies on handling appeals against opinions issued in ethics proceedings). University of Zagreb (Ethics Council). KLASA: 602-04/19-17/05, URBROJ: 380-106/334-19-1. Guidance. Accessed 2026-09-13. [hr-unizg-ethics-appeal-guidelines-2019]
    Accepted at the 29th session of the Ethics Council on 5 March 2019. This is guidance issued by the Ethics Council, not a Senate regulation, so its binding force is uncertain.
  • Plan za ravnopravnost Sveučilišta u Zagrebu (Rektorat) (Gender Equality Plan of the University of Zagreb (Rectorate)). University of Zagreb (Rector). Policy. Accessed 2026-09-13. [hr-unizg-gender-equality-plan-2023]
    Scanned PDF without a text layer; the table of contents and pp. 22–24 were read as rendered pages. On those pages the measures are worded as commitments of the University and the Plan bears the rector's signature.