Die Verjährung im Promotionsrecht

Achim Doerfer

摘要

Seit bald zwei Jahren haben promotionsrechtliche Fragen die Tagespresse beschäftigt. Der Schwerpunkt der öffentlichen Diskussion lag dabei in der politischen Bewertung wissenschaftlicher Mängel in Promotionen. Im Internet wurde über Fehlerkriterien und Auswertungsmodalitäten diskutiert. Dabei fällt auf, dass etliche der coram publico diskutierten Arbeiten aus der frühen Computerzeit, gar der Schreibmaschinenzeit stammen und die damals noch eher jugendlichen Titelträger nun mitten in ihrer Karriere stehen. Einige der diskutierten Arbeiten waren bereits Jahrzehnte alt. Ausdrückliche Verjährungsregeln enthält, soweit dies zu eruieren war, keine Promotionsordnung einer deutschsprachigen Fakultät. Wie lange also sind Unregelmäßigkeiten bei Promotionen überprüfbar? Zuletzt hat Löwer mehrfach unter Hinweis auf die „salvierende Wirkung der Zeit" auf Beantwortung dieser Grundsatzfrage gedrängt.%During the last two years there has been a discussion all over the media including internet blogs about legal aspects of doctoral dissertations. The emphasis has been on a political assessment of faulty quotations in doctoral dissertations. That said, it has to be stated that many of the works under public scrutiny date back to the early computer age if not the typewriter era. The authors, then still of young age, are now in the middle of their respective careers. In light of the fact that apparently none of the academic regulations on doctoral dissertations do contain provisions of limitation, the question arises how long formal flaws should have to result in legal consequences.rnProvided those gaps in the applicable regulations are of deliberate nature, the main reason for that might be a concept of the doctor's degree as some kind of honorary title. Historically this concept might stem in large part from the legal policy underlying the 1939 Gesetz zur Fuehrung akademischer Grade (Law Governing the Use of Academic Titles), which has since then been abolished in the last twenty-five years by the German states as well as on the federal level. This paradigm change has so far been insufficiently realized in the legal discussion.rnThe applicable state law and federal law can be found in § 48 Verwaltungsverfah-rensgesetz (Law on Administrational Procedure), containing a provision of limitation one year after the administrative body has full knowledge of the flawed dissertation (relative limitation), but no provision of limitation regardless of any such knowledge (absolute limitation). In stark contrast to that, most other fields of law do contain such provisions of limitation (e.g. civil law, IP law, penal law, social law, law of legal procedure, law of taxation), very often in a quite detailed way. There is, however, no considerable doubt in the German legal world that limitation as a legal principle pervades the legal order as a whole. Its legal ends a manifold: Legal certainty, legal peace, protection of confidence, prevention of selective enforcement, to name only a few.rnGiven those legal considerations, many of them to be derived from constitutional values, it has to be asked whether it can be argued for the lack of any limitation as being a conditio sine qua non to the only constitutionally valid aim of the administrative actions under discussion: The upholding of uniform standards for the formal requirements of doctoral dissertations. The answer has to be to the negative: Because of the fact that for practical reasons only a small amount of the vast number of dissertations can be put under scrutiny, the aim of defending the aforementioned standards can be attained as well or better by reviewing a given number of dissertations from the last ten years than, e.g., a quarter of those number from each decade of the last forty years. Moreover, the risk of selective enforcement increases, the smaller the number of reviewed dissertations in a given period of time.rnIn addition to the general legal ends of limitation as mentioned above, the constitutional rights of the author (protection of confidence, the right not to be deprived of his or her title on the deathbed, while even a murderer is protected by limitation) as well as the interests of third parties involved (e.g. faculties receiving grants according to the number of dissertations published by their students, other scientist quoting from the flawed book) strongly argue for limitation. The details of a rule of limitation can be attained by the legal principle of analogy. Most of the comparable rules from a diversity of legal fields hint to a limitation period of five to ten years.rnWhile it may be preferable to one day enact - according to the civil law tradition of German law - statutory laws of limitation on the subject under discussion, this day will very likely not be in the near future. This is due to the fact that the educational sector falls within the responsibility of the single states, and the design of the respective examination procedures even is part of the very core of self-government of the single universities. Until then, we will as well live with an analogous rule of limitation, under which ten years are an appropriate limitation period.

机译：日报已经处理了有关升迁法的问题近两年了。公开讨论的重点是对博士学位科学缺陷的政治评估。错误标准和评估方式已在Internet上进行了讨论。令人惊讶的是，coram publico讨论的许多作品都可以追溯到计算机的早期，甚至是打字机，而当时还很年轻的标题持有者现在正处于他们的职业生涯中期。讨论的一些作品已有数十年历史。就可以确定的范围而言，明确的时效法规不包含德语教师的任何博士规定。那么，可以检查多长时间博士学位？最近，洛韦（Löwer）敦促多次回答这个基本问题，即“时间的救赎效果”。％在过去两年中，包括互联网博客在内的所有媒体都在讨论博士学位论文的法律问题。对博士论文引用错误的政治评估，也就是说，必须要说的是，许多受到公众审查的作品可以追溯到计算机早期时代，即使不是打字机时代。鉴于有关博士论文的学术规定中显然没有载有限制条款的事实，因此出现了一个问题，即正式缺陷应导致法律后果的时间有多长。rn法规具有故意性质，其主要原因可能是将博士学位授予某种荣誉称号的概念。从理论上讲，这一概念可能很大程度上源于1939年《学术名称使用法》所依据的法律政策，此法律在随后的25年中被德国各州以及在联邦一级。迄今为止，这种范式变化在法律讨论中还没有充分实现。可在第48条《行政程序法》（Verwaltungsverfah-rensgesetz）中找到适用的州法律和联邦法律，其中载有在行政机构成立满一年后的时效限制。关于有缺陷的论文的知识（相对限制），但是无论这些知识如何（绝对限制），都没有提供限制。与此形成鲜明对比的是，大多数其他法律领域的确包含了此类限制规定（例如，民法，知识产权法，刑法，社会法，法律程序法，税法），而且往往是非常详尽的。但是，在德国法律界中，毫无疑问，限制作为一项法律原则遍及整个法律秩序。它的法律以多种多样的形式结束：法律确定性，法律和平，保护信任，防止选择性执法等，仅举几例。考虑到这些法律考虑因素，其中许多是从宪法价值中衍生出来的，必须问其是否可以有人认为没有任何限制是所讨论的行政行为在宪法上唯一有效的前提条件：坚持博士学位论文形式要求的统一标准。答案必须是否定的：由于出于实际原因，只能对大量论文中的一小部分进行审查，因此，通过回顾以下内容，可以达到或更好地捍卫上述标准。给定最近十年论文的数量，而不是过去四十年中每十年论文数量的四分之一。此外，选择性执行的风险会增加，在给定的时间段内审阅论文的数量会减少。rn除了上述一般性的法律限制外，作者的宪法权利（保护信任，被剥夺了他或她在死床上的头衔，而即使一个凶手也受到限制的保护）以及所涉第三方的利益（例如，根据学生发表的论文数量获得资助的院系，其他科学家引用有缺陷的书）强烈主张限制。限制规则的细节可以通过类比的法律原则获得。来自不同法律领域的大多数可比规则都暗示了限制期为五至十年。rn尽管根据德国法律的民法传统，颁布一天可能是更可取的，但根据讨论中，这一天很可能不会在不久的将来。这是由于教育部门属于单个州的责任这一事实甚至各个考试程序的设计甚至都是单一大学自治的核心部分。在此之前，我们还将遵循类似的限制规则，在该规则中，十年为适当的限制期限。

Die Verjährung im Promotionsrecht

摘要

著录项

相似文献

相关主题

期刊订阅