To implement: Part IV, point 2 of the Ethics Code of Charles University
Date of effect: 1 January 2019
The Ethics Commission (“Commission”) is established in accordance with the Code of Ethics of Charles University (“Code of Ethics” and “University”) to deal with submissions concerning compliance with the Code of Ethics.
The Commission is composed of seven members. The Chair and six members are appointed and dismissed by the Rector; the term of office is three years. The Commission is made up of members of the academic community of the University. Two members of the Commission are nominated by the Research Board of the University; three members of the Commission are nominated by the Academic Senate of the University, and at least two of them must be students of the University.
Membership in the Commission is conditional upon written consent of the appointee to the membership or to the chairmanship, coupled with a confidentiality agreement regarding any confidential or sensitive issues arising from the submissions discussed; this provision applies by analogy to the Chair of the Commission.
On the Chair’s proposal, the Rector may, in order to consider a specific case at issue, appoint ad hoc other members of the Commission in an advisory capacity; paragraph 2 applies to such other members by analogy.
The Commission holds meetings as necessary, but no less than once a year. The meetings are convened and chaired by the Chair of the Commission or a member of the Commission authorised by the Chair. The Chair is required to convene a meeting if at least two members of the Commission so request.
The Commission considers submissions made by members of the academic community and other employees of the University concerning compliance with the Code of Ethics. A submission is made in writing to the Chair of the Commission. The Chair, without undue delay after its delivery, introduces to the Ethics Commission members the content of the submission, and appoints a member-reporter who is to consider the admissibility of the submission.
The Commission proceeds rationally and in such manner that the submission may be handled in its entirety and without delay. The Commission considers individual submissions at its next meeting, and decides on a most appropriate solution. A meeting to consider the submission is to be held essentially within three months after its delivery. Should the Commission be unable to keep such time-limit it is to inform the Rector, the applicant and the President of the University Academic Senate of such fact and to provide reasons for such failure. The information is to include the earliest date of the next meeting. Any submissions which do not directly concern the Code of Ethics are inadmissible and are not considered on their merits.
The meetings of the Commission are not public. Where necessary, the Commission is entitled to request other documents including opinions or statements.
The Commission gives its written statement on each submission which is considered on its merits, usually within 9 months. The statement contains the Commission’s opinion. Should the Commission be unable to comply with such time-limit it is to inform, and provide reasons for such failure to comply, the applicant, persons concerned, the Rector, and the President of the University Academic Senate. The information is to include the anticipated schedule for handling the submission.
The Chair and Commission members have one vote each. For a draft resolution to be adopted, it is necessary to obtain at least four votes in its favour. The vote can be secret if the Chair or any member of the Commission so propose.
If necessary, the Commission may take vote per rollam (remotely) on its resolution. Background documents including the full draft of a resolution, a voting form and the deadline for casting remote vote are delivered to the members not later than one week in advance. The time-limit for casting remote vote must not be shorter than 5 working days. The filled-in voting form is to contain the name and surname of a voter and their vote (in favour/against/abstain). A voting report constitutes part of the minutes of the next meeting of the Commission; the report includes the number of Commission members in favour of the draft, the number of those against, the number of abstainees and the number of those who did not take part in the vote. If at least one Commission member has expressed, within the time-limit for casting vote, their disagreement with such mode of voting the vote per rollam may not be pursued and a meeting of the Commission must be convened instead.
The Commission’s statement is sent to the applicant, participants, the Rector, the President of the Academic Senate of the University and the dean of a respective Faculty or deans of respective Faculties where the person concerned is employed.
The Commission’s statement is published on the University website, except for confidential information, in accordance with Act No. 101/2000 Sb., on the Protection of Personal Data, as amended.
The primary purpose of the Commission is to consider submissions relating to compliance with the Code of Ethics of Charles University.
The Commission does not serve as an appellate body regarding appeals against decisions of ethics commissions of individual faculties and other University units. The Commission may consider submissions irrespective of their (earlier) handling by ethics commissions of individual faculties and other University units.
The Commission, if necessary, cooperates with the Commission for Ethics in Research1 of the University, commissions for ethics in research established by individual faculties and other University units.
This directive is issued after the Academic Senate of the University gave its opinion on 14 December 2018.
Rector´s Directive No. 27/2013 “Code of Procedure for the Ethics Commission” is hereby repealed.
This directive becomes effective on 1 January 2019.
Prague, 20 December 2018
prof. MUDr. Tomáš Zima, DrSc., MBA
Rector´s Directive No. 74/2017