The rector as a central participant in disciplinary proceedings at a university – a university body guarding the rule of law or perhaps active participant in disciplinary proceedings?

The author attempts to address the research problem of whether the rector serves as an impartial guardian of the rule of law or as an active participant in disciplinary proceedings. The study demonstrates that the rector holds the exclusive power to appoint disciplinary ombudspersons from among academic teachers and, indirectly, to influence the selection of members of disciplinary committees. The analysis examines the rector’s powers upon receiving notification of a potential disciplinary offence, including the authority to impose an admonition for minor misconduct, to refer cases to mediation, and to issue binding instructions to disciplinary ombudspersons to initiate proceedings. Attention is then given to the rector’s limited role in the subsequent disciplinary proceedings and in the enforcement phase, in which the rector is responsible for administering the execution of penalties and their eventual expungement. The article emphasizes the importance of the rector’s high professional qualifications and moral integrity in managing a higher education institution and highlights the relationship between the rector and the disciplinary ombudsperson, pointing to the rector’s constitutive competences with respect to university disciplinary bodies and the significant impact of these competences on their effective functioning. Using the formal-dogmatic method and the author’s practical experience, the study identifies shortcomings in the current regulations, such as the lack of unified procedures applicable to different groups within the academic community and the risk of instrumental use of disciplinary proceedings as a form of repression against members of that community. The paper concludes with de lege ferenda proposals advocating the strengthening of the autonomy of disciplinary ombudspersons, the ensuring of efficient proceedings, and the harmonization of the model of judicial review of disciplinary decisions.