It is a regular occurence during university examinations that a candidate will try to employ illicit methods in order to influence the results of an examination in his or her favour. A distinction must be made between completed deception which is discovered after the use of illicitmeans and the attempt of cheating which is noticed before the candidate has been able to employ the illicit method. The burdon of proof is on the responsible examination office. If it cannot deliver such proof by prima facie evidence, the principle of "in dubio pro discipulo" applies.Cheating and methods of deception can be punished or sanctioned in manifold ways. Hereby, not only constitutional law and applicable regulations governing higher education must be observed but also statutory requirements that are mainly to be found in the university and course specific examinationregulations. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, especially failing the candidate in the examination must be taken into consideration if the examinee has crossed the line as far as cheating is concerned. In mild or milder cases, a mere reprimand or allocation to a differentseat in the examination room is often sufficient. If repeated or serious attempts at cheating occur, the candidate may be exmatriculated, may be excluded from further examinations or a fine may be imposed. In exceptional cases, cheating can lead to a criminal conviction if the candidate hasuntruthfully declared in an affidavit that she or he wrote the examination without the help of illicit methods. In this context, the examining office has a variety of tasks to perform, beginning with the correct announcement of disallowed means to ensuring an effective supervision withthe aim of preventing cheating right through to the detection of an act of cheating and the imposition of a proportionate sanction. Important decisions (such as the detection of cheating or the consequent imposition of a so called sanction mark, i.e. marking the paper as failed) should bereserved for the board of examiners or the respective examiner. Overall, it is important that scientific misconduct during written examinations should not be trivialised – cheating and attempts to cheat at universities are not mere peccadillos and should therefore, in compliance withthe constitutional principle of equal treatment and as a means of general prevention, be appropriately penalised and sanctioned.
展开▼
机译：在大学考试中经常发生的情况是，候选人会尝试使用非法方法来影响考试结果，从而有利于他或她。必须区别对待在使用非法手段后发现的完全欺骗行为与在候选人能够采用非法方法之前发现的作弊尝试之间的区别。举证责任在负责检查的办公室。如果不能通过表面证据提供此类证据，则适用“在dubio pro discipulo中”原则。欺诈和欺骗方法可以多种方式受到惩罚或制裁。因此，不仅必须遵守有关高等教育的宪法和适用法规，而且还必须遵守主要在大学和特定课程考试法规中发现的法定要求。根据相称原则，特别是如果考生在作弊方面越过界限，则必须考虑考生的考试不及格。在轻度或更轻度的情况下，通常只需要训斥或分配到检查室的其他座位即可。如果反复或认真地尝试作弊，则候选人可能被放逐，可能被排除在进一步的检查之外，或处以罚款。在特殊情况下，如果应聘者在誓章中毫不留情地宣布自己在没有非法手段帮助下撰写考试的情况下，作弊可能会导致刑事定罪。在这种情况下，审查办公室要执行各种任务，首先要正确宣布禁止手段，以确保有效监督，以防止作弊行为，直至发现作弊行为和实行按比例制裁。 。应保留重要的决定（例如检测作弊或随后施加所谓的制裁标志，即将纸张标记为不合格）给审查员委员会或相应的审查员。总体而言，重要的是，不要轻描淡写笔试中的科学不当行为-在大学里作弊和企图作弊绝非易事，因此，根据宪法上的平等待遇原则和作为一般预防的手段，应予以适当惩处并受到制裁。
展开▼
