The university has the right to decide after what period of time it is not possible to complete studies.

This follows from one of the latest judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court (NSA).

The case concerned a former student of a leading Polish university who graduated in the academic year 2012/2013 but did not defend her master's thesis on time. The reason was poor health and as a consequence she was removed from the list of students.

After many years, the woman decided to fight for her diploma. In September 2020, she asked the vice-dean for permission to resume her studies. She assured that her health had improved significantly and expressed her willingness to make up for the differences in the curriculum.

Can a student who has been removed from the list return to university?

However, the dean did not give her the green light to reactivate her studies in the requested field. He used the study regulations as an excuse and pointed out that the woman had been removed from the list of students 7 years ago. Meanwhile, according to the regulations, reactivation in student rights may occur if no more than 5 years have passed since the date of removal from the list of students. This period, however, cannot be restored.

The would-be master's student disagreed with this decision, but she achieved nothing. The refusal was upheld by the rector. He agreed with the dean that reactivation was not possible due to the fact that she had been struck off the list of students 7 years earlier, as well as changes made in the curriculum and education program at that time.

The dispute went to court. In her complaint, the woman emphasized that she had not defended her thesis on time due to an exacerbation of depression. However, she noted that she had completed the entire 5-year curriculum planned for the years she had been studying. She also pointed out that the director of the institute had positively considered her application to resume studies in the fifth year, and the deputy director for student affairs had determined program differences that she would be required to make up.

Does the university have the right to refuse reactivation of student rights?

These arguments did not convince the Provincial Administrative Court (PAC) in Wrocław. It is true that it did not question that neither the current act – the Law on Higher Education and Science, nor the previous act – the Law on Higher Education contain any regulations directly concerning the restoration of student status through reactivation, i.e. re-admission to uncompleted studies.

Nevertheless, as the court noted, the legislator decided that the university is autonomous under the principles specified in the act. The consequence is that the organization of studies and the related rights and obligations of the student are specified in the regulations. According to the WSA, these regulations lead to the conclusion that the study regulations in force at the university - if they are not contrary to the act - specify both the university bodies competent to consider cases concerning reactivation to studies and the substantive conditions for consent to it.

In the disputed case, on the date of submission of the application for resumption of studies, as well as on the date of issuance of the contested decision, the regulations of studies resulting from the resolution of the University Senate were in force. According to them, a person who did not submit a diploma thesis or diploma exam on time, may, within 2 years from the date of removal from the list of students, apply for resumption of studies in order to complete them, and in particular submit the thesis and diploma exam within that period. It results from another provision of the regulations that an application for reactivation of studies may be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of removal from the list of students, which is also irreversible.

The applicant filed a motion to reactivate her studies after 5 years from the date of removal from the student list. However, as the court noted, her academic involvement during her studies or health problems could not have been significant in the case, given the expiry of the irreversible deadline.

Can the university set a deadline after which the master's thesis cannot be defended?

Ultimately, the NSA did not agree with the woman. It noted that the dispute in the case centered around the interpretation of the so-called company law, i.e. the study regulations. Its provisions clearly indicate when a student may be reinstated, and in the case of obtaining a discharge, reactivated.

The regulations also specify the deadlines, which were undoubtedly exceeded in the disputed case. And they are in accordance with the statutory authorization. As emphasized by the Supreme Administrative Court judge Mirosław Wincenciak, the legislator provided the authority to regulate this issue in the regulations. The judgment is final.

File reference number: III OSK 477/22