Stricter penalties, tight deadlines, and zero tolerance for delays are introduced by the new circular of the Greek Ministry of Education regarding student disciplinary actions at universities.

With a unified disciplinary council per institution and a link to criminal law, the new framework aims to end longstanding phenomena of impunity and administrative negligence. Specifically, the main disciplinary offenses and their prescribed penalties are detailed.

The procedures and time limits that must be observed. The role and composition of the disciplinary council. The risks of delaying tactics by rectorial authorities, the responsibility of students for repairing damages, and the measures universities must take for the safety and protection of their infrastructure.

Disciplinary offenses and penalties – The “tier” of violations
According to the provisions of the Ministry of Education circular, the list of disciplinary offenses is clear and restrictive.

The categories are as follows:

• Violation of exam integrity — i.e., cheating, use of unauthorized aids, or interference undermining the integrity of exams.
• Plagiarism or concealment of others’ contributions (in research work or assignments).
• Destruction of university property — movable or immovable — i.e., damages, vandalism, causing harm.
• Obstruction of the smooth operation of the institution — affecting educational, administrative, or research processes, canceling or obstructing service functions, collective bodies, or use of facilities in a way that disrupts operations.
• Use of spaces/facilities/equipment without permission — i.e., entry or use without approval.
• Use for incompatible purposes or facilitation for third parties — i.e., using infrastructure for activities unrelated to the university’s mission or allowing third parties to use it for purposes outside the university framework.
• Pollution or noise pollution — disposal of garbage, illegal waste, exceeding noise limits on campus.
• Use of prohibited substances / contribution to trafficking — i.e., illegal substances within facilities or involvement in their distribution.
• Committing a misdemeanor or felony within the institution or assisting third parties in such offenses.

The legal provision ensures there is no broad “punishment mechanism” for vague offenses. Instead, the law sets limits to prevent subjective overinterpretation.

Disciplinary penalties, as provided in Article 198, are also graduated with severity and escalation possibilities:

• Written reprimand
• Prohibition from participating in exams
• Prohibition from using facilities/equipment
• Suspension of student status (1 to 24 months)
• Permanent expulsion

In practice, for “lighter” offenses, such as violation of exam integrity or plagiarism, any of the first four penalties may be applied depending on severity.

However, for more serious offenses — such as property destruction, obstruction of operations, substance use, or committing a felony — the law mandates, as a minimum penalty, the suspension of student status, and permanent expulsion may be imposed – in special cases, it is obligatory.

Particularly important is that if criminal prosecution has been initiated and a final conviction issued for offenses under Article 168, paragraph 6 of the Penal Code (concerning criminal acts), then permanent expulsion is mandatory — it is not merely an option. In other words, the law directly links disciplinary and criminal law in these cases.

Finally, it is worth noting that the possibility of imposing “retroactive” penalties is limited: penalties not executed within three years after imposition cease to apply (the possibility of enforcement is terminated).

Also, the suspension period is not counted toward maximum study time nor does it affect any potential student suspension application.

It is emphasized that this framework introduces both transparency and limitations, so that the procedure does not become a tool for arbitrary punishment.

The process – Timelines and stages

A critical element of the new regulation is adherence to strict time limits so that the disciplinary process does not hang indefinitely — which in the past was a frequent point of contention and the cause of complaints about delaying tactics by university administrations.

Necessary steps

Initiation of disciplinary prosecution

• First, within ten (10) days of the incident, the Department Chair or Dean (for single-department schools) must initiate prosecution.
• If this deadline expires without action, other authorities (Rector or Deputy) may, within another ten days, undertake the prosecution.
• Failure to act within the prescribed deadlines does not eliminate the obligation to initiate prosecution but constitutes a disciplinary offense for the responsible party who delays.

Start of defense/investigation process

• The student is called in writing to defend themselves or is referred to the Disciplinary Council.
• A disciplinary investigation is conducted (except in cases where this is explicitly not required) and completed within one (1) month, with a possible extension of an additional month.
• After the investigation, the student is called again for a hearing, with a reasonable preparation time of at least five (5) days.

Decision of the Disciplinary Council

• The procedure (from prosecution initiation to decision) must be completed within ninety (90) days.
• If necessary, one extension of sixty (60) days may be granted by the competent disciplinary body.
• The decision is taken by simple majority of those present. If the verdict is a majority guilty, the penalty is determined by voting among all present.
• The decision must be reasoned, referencing the actual facts, penalty assessment criteria (severity, culpability, circumstances, participation in an organized plan, role), and the right to appeal.

Dispute – Legal remedies

• Except for a written reprimand, the student has the right to appeal to the administrative court of the university’s seat.
• Internal university procedures (regulations, disciplinary committees) are subject to legality review.

However, in cases where disciplinary offenses constitute felonies or misdemeanors, the disciplinary process is not automatically suspended due to criminal proceedings, although the council may decide on suspension with justification. Also, during suspension, the statute of limitations is paused.

Furthermore, in cases of property destruction, the disciplinary prosecution process coexists with damage assessment procedures to ensure that penalties are proportional and based on legal and factual evidence.

The process ceases if the student loses their status (e.g., graduation, expulsion, etc.).

The disciplinary council – composition, operation, and critical remarks

One of the main innovations of the new framework is the unified formation of a student disciplinary council per university, instead of individual departmental committees as was often the case in the past.

Composition of the student disciplinary council:

• Rector (regular member)
• Responsible Vice-Rector (with deputy)
• Dean of the School (or, if unavailable, the most senior faculty member)
• One faculty member (Professor or Emeritus) with a deputy
• One student representative with a deputy

The term of all members is two academic years, except the student representative, elected for one year. For initial implementation, a transitional process is foreseen.

Failure to elect the student representative or deputy does not invalidate the legality of the council’s composition — the body may meet and make decisions, but the election process obligation remains.

It is worth noting that transitioning to a unified body reduces fragmentation and likely delays at the departmental level, but requires strong administrative support and clear protocols.

Annual reporting, transparency, and publication of decisions introduce internal public oversight mechanisms. The body does not operate “forever in the dark.”

Holding individuals accountable (e.g., disciplinary responsibility of officials) in cases of missed deadlines or procedural delays signals an effort to prevent “delaying tactics.”

Active participation of students as representatives remains crucial so that the process is not limited to administrative levels but includes the community’s voice.

Daily operation of the council requires clear protocols, data verification, transparency in meetings, and records to prevent it from becoming a “black box” of unchecked decisions.

Risks of delaying tactics – What the new law prevents

One negative phenomenon in the past was the “hostage” of student cases: delays in prosecution, slow timelines, postponements, delaying appeals, or “scandalously vague” decisions that created a sense that the disciplinary process did not function as an accountability tool but as a bureaucratic obstacle.

The new law seeks to address this risk with:

• Strict deadlines: prosecution within 10 days, process completion within 90 days (with one 60-day extension) prevents intentional delays.
• Disciplinary responsibility of competent authorities: if the administration or Rector does not promptly form the disciplinary council or issue the notice, responsibility is established.
• Obligation of reporting: public (even anonymized) publication of cases and decisions automatically subjects administration to community oversight.
• Monitoring via platform: a special Ministry platform will allow delays and deviations in case progress to be identified.
• Right to legal remedies: the ability to appeal before an administrative court ensures decisions are not indisputable.

However, practical implementation will reveal whether rectorial authorities adhere to deadlines or attempt to “stall” cases with administrative obstacles. For example: failing to promptly form the disciplinary council, delaying hearings or investigations citing workload or staffing shortages, failing to implement damage assessment in destruction cases, or failing to issue reasoned decisions, leaving matters pending longer.

In such cases, accountability and judicial review are necessary oversight tools.

Student responsibility for damages – Restoration and transparency

A particularly critical aspect of the new regulation is merging the disciplinary process with the damage assessment process in cases of property destruction.

The logic is twofold: the student must, beyond the penalty, assume material responsibility for repairing the damage caused — either through restoration or financial compensation. The imposed penalty must be proportional to the damage and collected evidence. The university’s Security/Protection Unit (or equivalent body) must provide a documented damage assessment so that penalty imposition is not based on subjective judgments or exaggerations.

By adhering to the above, the idea is reinforced that discipline is not merely punishment, but protection of a public good — university infrastructure belongs to everyone. Damage repair should be viewed as an element of justice toward the community.

Simultaneously, universities are obliged to take preventive security measures to protect infrastructure (surveillance systems, cameras, security, alarm systems) to reduce opportunities for damage. If an institution does not adequately ensure facility security, it cannot place full responsibility on students for every damage. The current “challenge” for institutions is to establish reliable safety and material protection plans, with a deadline of the end of December 2025.

Protection of student rights – Balance with discipline

The new framework is not authoritarian but includes safeguards for students so that disciplinary procedures are not used coercively:

• Students have the right to a hearing, written notice, and reasonable preparation time (at least 5 days).
• Decisions must be reasoned, documenting actual facts and the rationale for penalties.
• Right to appeal to administrative court for decisions beyond written reprimand.
• The law applies principles of criminal law/procedural rights (where compatible with the nature of disciplinary proceedings), such as legality, proportionality, presumption of innocence, hearing, and right of defense.
• The principle of retroactivity of the more favorable law applies: if a new regulation benefits the student, it is applied.

Thus, discipline cannot become an arbitrary tool. The law attempts to set “brakes” — but these only work if institutional procedures are open, controlled, and transparent.

Preliminary suggestions for universities

For the new framework to function as an active disciplinary mechanism with rational and fair character, universities must take the following measures:

Informing the academic community

• Announce and disseminate the circular, educational seminars, integration into student regulations
• Ensure every student knows the disciplinary offenses and consequences

Revision of internal regulations

• Compatibility with the new law, visibility of procedures, integration of explicit terms
• Abolish or adapt provisions contradicting the circular

Organization of the disciplinary structure

• Staffing the Security/Protection Unit with personnel capable of recording damages, photos, evidence
• Creating a disciplinary case archive (certified, timestamped)
• Supporting the disciplinary council (secretarial support, legal documentation)

Transparency and oversight mechanisms

• Preparing the annual report and publishing anonymized
• Cooperation with the Ministry’s monitoring platform
• Publication of key indicators (case completion times, conviction rates, types of penalties)

Preventive security measures

• Installing cameras, alarms, security
• Fencing or controlled access to critical infrastructure
• Regular maintenance inspections to reduce risk of damage
• Training students/staff to respect buildings, infrastructure, and material resources

Crisis management strategy and mediation

• Developing mechanisms for initial investigation and mediation before disciplinary proceedings
• Warning files and opportunities for corrective behavior

Prospects

The new circular — and the legislative framework it clarifies — represent a significant milestone for student disciplinary law at universities. When theory is translated into practice, it will become clear whether commitments to speed, transparency, accountability, and proportionality function as a counterbalance to inertia or arbitrariness.

According to Ministry of Education sources, the key factors for success are the good faith and consistency of rectors and administrations, adequate staffing and support of the disciplinary mechanism, active participation and monitoring by the student community, and transparent operation of oversight and legal mechanisms.

If all functions properly, the new system can enhance trust in university justice — i.e., that “no one is above the law, but also that no one will be punished unfairly,” as highlighted.

Conversely, delaying tactics or administrative negligence could undermine the goal: the framework establishes tools, but the real challenge is implementation. This literally depends on how universities and students act in the coming period.