1. These Study and Examination Regulations for Doctoral Studies (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Study and Examination Regulations’) govern the organisation and conduct of studies in doctoral degree programmes (hereinafter referred to as ‘DDPs’) offered by the faculties of the University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice (hereinafter referred to as ‘USB’) in accordance with Act No. 111/1998, on Higher Education Institutions and on Amendments and Supplements to Other Acts (Higher Education Act), as amended (hereinafter referred to as  ‘Act’), the USB Statutes and the accreditations of individual degree programmes.

2. The Study and Examination Regulations (hereinafter also referred to as ‘SER’) are binding on students of doctoral degree programmes (hereinafter also referred to as ‘doctoral candidates’), supervisors, other persons involved in the supervision of doctoral students, programme guarantors and other members of field of study boards (hereinafter referred to as ‘FSB’), as well as other academic staff and other persons involved in the delivery of the doctoral degree programme (hereinafter also referred to as ‘doctoral studies’). These Study and Examination Regulations apply to the aforementioned persons in the implementation of a doctoral degree programme carried out in cooperation with another higher education institution in the Czech Republic or abroad, or with another legal entity referred to in Section 81(1) of the Act, unless the agreement on mutual cooperation in the implementation of the degree programme in question provides otherwise. The agreement must comply with the provisions of the Act and the conditions of the relevant accreditation.

1. When deciding on the rights and obligations of students, the dean and the Rector are bound by the provisions of these Study and Examination Regulations. Where the term ‘dean’ is used in these Regulations, it shall also be understood to mean the authorised vice-dean. Exceptions to these Study and Examination Regulations shall not be permitted, unless otherwise specified below.
2. Where these Study and Examination Regulations expressly so provide, doctoral programmes shall be conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the USB Study and Examination Regulations for Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes (hereinafter ‘undergraduate SER’). The undergraduate SER shall also apply in other cases where circumstances so require, to the extent that this is appropriate in view of the specific nature of the DDP.
3. The Vice-Rector for Student Affairs is authorised to interpret the Study and Examination Regulations.

6. The status of doctoral students, supervisors and other persons involved in the supervision of doctoral students, the FSB and the supervising unit are also governed by the dean’s Ordinance on Studies in Doctoral Degree Programmes (Article 2) and by the Quality Standards for Doctoral Studies at the University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Quality Standards for Doctoral Studies’), the Standard for DDP Students and the Standard for Supervisors in Doctoral Studies at the University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Standard for Supervisors’).

1. To implement these Study and Examination Regulations, the dean shall issue ordinances governing studies in doctoral degree programmes (hereinafter referred to as the ‘dean’s ordinances’). The ordinances must be in accordance with these Study and Examination Regulations, as well as with those provisions of the undergraduate SER to which these Study and Examination Regulations expressly refer (Article 1(4), first sentence); this shall not apply if the referring provision of the Study and Examination Regulations also stipulates that the dean’s ordinances take precedence. The dean’s ordinances shall take precedence over any other applicable provisions of the undergraduate SER (Article 1(4), second sentence).
2. In such an ordinance, the dean may lay down rules that are appropriate or necessary for the proper organisation of educational and creative activities relating to doctoral studies at the relevant faculty. However, the dean’s ordinances must not broaden or narrow the scope of obligations incumbent upon doctoral students, nor may they deprive doctoral students of the rights granted to them by these Study and Examination Regulations; they may only specify the procedures or conditions for their implementation.
3. The dean may further delegate the setting of rules—where this is appropriate in order to respect differences between fields of study—to the FSB. In such a case, the dean shall specify in his or her measure which rules the FSB is to amend or supplement in his or her stead, in what form and by what date they are to do so, as well as under what conditions they may amend them.

1. Doctoral studies are conducted under the supervision of a supervisor (Article 5) and other persons involved in the supervision of the doctoral student (Article 6) in accordance with an individual study plan (hereinafter also referred to as the ‘ISP’) (Article 9), which the doctoral student draws up in collaboration with their supervisor.
2. Doctoral studies are monitored and assessed by the FSB (Article 7). The purpose of the assessment of doctoral studies (hereinafter also referred to as ‘assessment’) is, amongst other things, to determine whether the doctoral student is fulfilling the study obligations set out in the ISP and, if not fully, to assess whether it can still be legitimately assumed that sufficient progress is being made in their doctoral studies to lead to their successful completion within the standard duration of studies or within a similar timeframe.
3. The standard duration of doctoral studies is set by accreditation. The maximum duration of studies in a doctoral degree programme is two years longer than the standard duration; periods of interruption of studies are not counted towards the maximum duration of studies. This does not apply in the case of an interruption of studies due to a temporary loss of medical fitness or non-payment of tuition fees, in which case the period of interruption is counted towards the maximum duration of studies. Reaching the maximum duration of studies is regarded as a failure to meet the study requirements; as a result, the dean shall decide to terminate the student’s studies. If, in view of the student’s academic progress to date and any other circumstances worthy of special consideration, termination of studies due to the expiry of the maximum duration of studies would be unduly harsh for the doctoral student, the dean may, upon the student’s request submitted before the maximum duration of studies is reached, authorise a reasonable extension of the maximum duration of studies.
4. The studies of a doctoral student enrolled before 1 March 2025, provided that their first period of studies commenced before that date, shall be duly, that is to say successfully, concluded by a state doctoral examination within the meaning of the first sentence of Section 47(4) of the Act, as in force until 28 February 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SDE’) and by a public defence of the doctoral thesis (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DisP’). The doctoral programme of a doctoral student enrolled after 1 March 2025, as well as that of a doctoral student enrolled before that date, provided that their first period of studies commenced after 1 March 2025, shall be duly completed by a state final examination consisting of the defence of the DisP. Graduates of the doctoral programme are awarded the academic title ‘Doctor’ (abbreviated to ‘Ph.D.’ and placed after the name).
5. The grounds for unsuccessful termination of doctoral studies are set out in Section 56 of the Act. These include, in particular, termination of studies due to failure to meet the requirements of the degree programme in accordance with the study and examination regulations pursuant to Section 56(1)(b) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘failure to meet study requirements’) (Article 20) and withdrawal from studies pursuant to Section 56(1)(a) of the Act; in which case Article 50 of the undergraduate SER shall apply analogously.

1. USB uses the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS). The dean may, by way of a decision, specify the scope and method of using ECTS within the DDP, including the setting of conditions for continuing studies relating to the number of credits obtained during the assessment period. In such cases, if a doctoral student fails to obtain the specified number of credits by the deadline, this is deemed a failure to meet the study requirements; consequently, the FSB shall assess the progress of the studies in accordance with Article 11(5)(d), and the dean shall decide to terminate the studies.
2. The administration of doctoral studies is carried out by the faculty’s student affairs office or another faculty unit authorised to do so.
3. The role of the USB electronic information system within the meaning of Sections 57 and 68 to 69b of the Act, which also provides access to information on degree programmes, study regulations and study-related requirements, is fulfilled by IS/STAG at USB. Doctoral students are required to submit student applications via IS/STAG; decisions and other official documents are also delivered to them via IS/STAG. For all other written communication relating to their doctoral studies, they are required to use the email account set up upon enrolment, which includes their university email address. Where an academic staff member or other USB employee, or any other person involved in instruction or its organisation, is required to inform a doctoral student – without this constituting an act within administrative proceedings – they must do so via their University email to the doctoral student’s University email address. A supervisor who is not an employee of USB may also communicate with the doctoral student via another email address designated for their mutual communication.

1. The supervisor is responsible for supervising the doctoral student in the DDP. Their status, rights and obligations arise primarily from these Study and Examination Regulations and from the Standard for Supervisors.
2. A supervisor may only be an academic or research staff member, an expert in the relevant field, whose expertise at both national and international level, good character and moral integrity should guarantee the high-quality and proper supervision of the doctoral student.
3. In particular, the supervisor:
   1. prepares the doctoral student’s individual study plan in collaboration with the doctoral student;
   2. proposes consultants and/or co-supervisors;
   3. maintains regular contact with the doctoral student;
   4. monitors the progress of the doctoral student’s studies and research and provides them with regular consultations;
   5. is responsible for the doctoral student’s involvement in research and for ensuring adequate material and financial support for their research;
   6. continuously assesses the progress of the doctoral student’s work;
   7. prepares the supervisor’s assessment report and submits it to the FSB (Article 12(4)(c));
   8. where necessary, the FSB proposes an extraordinary assessment of the doctoral programme (Article 11(1));
   9. prepares an assessment of the supervisor in the format specified by the dean’s ordinance.
4. Supervisors are appointed by the dean, on the recommendation of the FSB, from among professors and associate professors, or other experts holding an academic title approved by the relevant scientific board; experts without an academic title but with appropriate artistic expertise, approved by the relevant scientific board, may also act as supervisors for DDP students in the arts.
5. When assessing a proposed supervisor, the FSB and subsequently the dean shall take into account:
   1. whether the supervisor’s research focus is consistent with the DisP topic;
   2. the requirements regarding the maximum number of doctoral students supervised and co-supervised, as set out in the Standard for Supervisors and the Quality Standards for Doctoral Studies,
   3. other teaching commitments, including those outside USB, in particular the number of bachelor’s and master’s theses supervised;

   for every supervisor proposed for the first time, the FSB shall first assess their previous research, teaching and publication activities, as well as their previous and planned professional development for the role of supervisor.

6. A supervisor may resign from their post for serious reasons, in writing and stating the reasons, addressed to the chair of the FSB. A student may also request a change of supervisor in the same manner, and the FSB may propose such a change on its own initiative. If the FSB proposes a change of supervisor, it shall do so without undue delay and propose another suitable supervisor to the dean; the dean is obliged to decide on the FSB’s proposal without undue delay upon receipt of the proposal. Until a new supervisor is appointed, the chair of the FSB shall perform the supervisor’s duties that cannot be postponed.

1. It is a requirement of the USB Quality Standards for Doctoral Studies that at least two academic staff members are involved in the supervision of a doctoral student. In addition to the supervisor, this may include a co-supervisor, a consultant or an advisory group of consultants (e.g. a Thesis Advisory Committee).
2. A co-supervisor may be another academic appointed by the relevant FSB. The co-supervisor complements the supervisor, particularly in providing methodological guidance to the doctoral student and in ensuring regular consultations with the doctoral student; they do not assume the supervisor’s powers and duties. The co-supervisor is appointed by recording this fact in the ISP.
3. The FSB may appoint as consultants or members of an advisory group of consultants individuals from among experts in a given academic discipline who, by virtue of their specialist knowledge or methodological and technical capabilities, are able to supervise a doctoral student during a specific subject area or period of their doctoral studies. These experts need not be employed by USB. A consultant or advisory group of consultants is established by recording this fact in the ISP.

1. The Quality of Studies in the DDP is monitored and assessed by the FSB. A joint FSB may be established for degree programmes within the same field of study. The faculty management is responsible for providing administrative support for the work of the FSB.
2. The FSB is responsible for the content and implementation of the DDP. In particular:
   1. It monitors and evaluates studies within the relevant DDP and regulates them to ensure they comply with the Quality Standards for Doctoral Studies.
   2. It proposes the composition of admissions panels.
   3. It proposes a (future) supervisor, either prior to enrolment or without undue delay following the doctoral student’s enrolment in the doctoral programme, or proposes a change of supervisor.
   4. It assesses and approves the Individual Study Plan (ISP), authorises its updating where appropriate, or updates it on his or her own initiative.
   5. For programmes carried out in collaboration with several departments, it proposes to the dean, without undue delay following the doctoral student’s enrolment in the doctoral programme, that a supervising unit be designated.
   6. It regularly evaluates the doctoral programme (Article 11); it may also set an additional deadline for the fulfilment of obligations which the doctoral student has failed to fulfil properly and on time, as well as any related extraordinary assessment.
   7. It proposes the composition of the committees for the comprehensive examination and the committees for the defence of doctoral theses, and approves the external examiners for doctoral theses.
   8. It discusses students’ requests for exceptional assessment and a change of supervisor.
3. The FSB sets out the scope of requirements and the focus of the SDE for a doctoral student whose programme includes an SDE (Article 12(1)).
4. The FSB shall have at least five members, who may be professors and associate professors or eminent experts in the relevant field holding an academic title, who, within the last five years, have carried out creative work corresponding to the area of education within which the doctoral degree programme is to be implemented, provided that at least two of them must not be employees of the faculty or other legal entities involved in the delivery of the doctoral degree programme in question. Members of the DDP FSB are appointed and dismissed by the dean following approval by the faculty’s scientific board, for a term not exceeding the period of validity of the accreditation of the doctoral degree programme in question. A member of the FSB shall not have the right to vote when the board is making a decision concerning a doctoral student for whom they act as a supervisor.
5. The activities of the FSB are directed by its chair; by law, this role is held by the DDP supervisor. The chair of any joint programme board is appointed by the dean, or by agreement amongst the deans, from amongst the supervisors of the relevant DDPs. The chair of the FSB also carries out certain formal acts on behalf of the FSB, in particular informing the doctoral student of the outcome of the assessment of their doctoral studies. The chair of the FSB also proposes to the dean any necessary changes or additions to the composition of the FSB during its term of office. The FSB appoints a deputy member from among its own ranks, who exercises the powers of the chair of the FSB in the chair’s absence or in relation to a doctoral student whose supervisor is the chair of the FSB.
6. The FSB meets in person, or by means of remote communication enabling real-time audio and video transmission (hereinafter referred to as ‘remotely’), or in a hybrid format. Where justified, the FSB may also meet per rollam; however, this does not apply to matters concerning the assessment of doctoral studies (Article 11).
7. The FSB has a quorum if the number of FSB members present and entitled to vote (paragraph 4, last sentence) exceeds half of all FSB members. A resolution of the FSB is adopted if a simple majority of the members present and entitled to vote vote in favour of it.

1. In relation to a specific doctoral student or their doctoral programme, the supervising unit is the unit designated as such by the dean of the faculty at which the doctoral student is enrolled. The term ‘unit’ also refers to an institute, studio, section or other organisational unit of the faculty responsible for instruction.
2. The division of responsibilities for the administrative management of a given doctoral student’s studies shall be determined by an ordinance issued by the dean; in the case of programmes carried out in collaboration between several faculties or institutions, it shall be determined by the programme implementation agreement.

1. Studies in a doctoral degree programme is conducted in accordance with an individual study plan under the supervision of a supervisor and other experts. The individual study plan is based on the curriculum of the relevant DDP and includes, in particular:
   1. the topic and the DisP;
   2. the distribution of all compulsory and compulsory-optional modules across individual semesters or academic years of study;
   3. training in transferable skills, unless this is specified in the DDP study plan in the form of compulsory and compulsory-optional modules;
   4. a framework programme for the doctoral student’s own systematic creative research work on the topic of their DisP, including an outline of the methodology for preparing the DisP;
   5. other obligations of the doctoral student as set out in the study plan for the relevant DDP;
   6. where the supervisor is not an employee of USB, the supervisor’s email address designated for communication with the student.

   details regarding the content and form of the ISP are set out in an ordinance issued by the dean in accordance with the USB Quality Standards for Doctoral Studies.

2. The ISP proposal, drawn up to guide the doctoral student towards the successful completion of their doctoral studies within the standard duration of studies, is prepared by the doctoral student in consultation with their supervisor and submitted to the FSB for approval no later than two months from the date of enrolment; an ordinance issued by the dean may set a shorter deadline. Failure to submit the ISP proposal within the deadline specified in the preceding sentence – unless the supervisor demonstrably failed to cooperate in its preparation – is regarded as a failure to meet the study requirements; as a result, the dean shall decide to terminate the student’s studies. The FSB shall assess the ISP proposal within one month of its submission.
3. The FSB shall approve the proposed ISP if it meets the conditions set out in this article and is capable of leading the doctoral student, provided they fulfil the obligations set out therein within the deadlines specified therein, to the successful completion of their doctoral studies within the standard duration of studies. Otherwise, the FSB will not approve the ISP and, within a subsequently set period of at least 15 days, will request the doctoral student to revise and resubmit it. The request shall include specific requirements for revising the ISP. Failure to submit and a revised draft ISP within the specified deadline is regarded as a failure to meet the study requirements; as a result, the dean will decide to terminate the student’s studies. The procedure set out in this paragraph also applies when assessing a revised ISP, which the FSB is obliged to assess without undue delay following its submission.
4. The approved ISP, or updated ISP, is binding on the doctoral student.
5. An ordinance issued by the dean sets out the conditions and procedure for amending the ISP.

1. A doctoral student is obliged to fulfil the ISP as approved by the FSB and as further specified in this article.
2. In particular, a student in a doctoral degree programme must:
   1. during the first year of study, present a draft plan of their work on the DisP topic at a departmental seminar;
   2. devote themselves consistently and regularly to independent research work, the progress of which is confirmed by the supervisor at each assessment by awarding a credit for a module related to the DisP or in an assessment report;
   3. submit, within the specified deadline, an analysis of their R&D research to date and formulate the research question for their dissertation research;
   4. complete training in transferable skills within the specified timeframe;
   5. undertake teaching (academic) duties to the specified extent, usually comprising teaching and other teaching activities;
   6. at least once a year, to present a progress report on their work at seminars organised by the supervising unit;
   7. fulfil other obligations specified in the individual study plan, in particular, where possible, to publish the completed results of their scientific and research work and to gain international experience.
3. If the ISP includes study courses (hereinafter referred to as ‘courses’), the doctoral student shall enrol for them in the semester or academic year specified in the ISP, within the enrolment period set out in the academic year timetable or by an ordinance of the dean.
4. Courses and other requirements are completed in the manner set out in the study plan and specified in IS/STAG (usually by means of an examination or credit for a completed requirement); completion of these is recorded in the IS/STAG system.
5. If a doctoral student fails to complete a module included in the ISP by the deadline set in the timetable for its completion, they are obliged to enrol in it a second time, in the earliest possible semester in which it can be completed, taking into account the organisation of instruction. This does not apply if the FSB has decided to amend the ISP as follows:
   1. the rescheduling of a course re-enrolled in to a later period, or
   2. the replacement of a compulsory-elective or elective module with another module of equivalent status (Article 9(1) of the undergraduate SER), supplemented by its inclusion in one of the subsequent semesters of study; the FSB may also, in exceptional cases, stipulate that the replacement module is to be regarded as a module re-enrolled in.
6. If a doctoral student fails to complete a course enrolled in for a second time by the deadline set for its completion in the academic year timetable, this is regarded as a failure to meet the study requirements; consequently, the dean shall decide to terminate the student’s studies.
7. In accordance with the instructions of the supervisor and the supervising unit, the doctoral student shall participate in instruction activities, lectures and the completion of tasks set by the supervising unit, to the extent specified in the ISP and necessary for the acquisition of the appropriate teaching competences expected of a graduate of the DDP.
8. In accordance with the instructions of the head of the unit, which is their supervising unit, a doctoral student enrolled in a full-time doctoral programme shall participate in further academic and scientific and research work at the supervising unit, in line with the development of their academic and research competencies and to the extent approved by the FSB and commensurate with the amount of their doctoral scholarship.
9. The student’s fulfilment of the ISP is assessed by the FSB (Article 11).

1. Doctoral studies are assessed on an ongoing basis by the FSB as part of an initial assessment held no later than six months into the programme, and subsequently as part of an annual assessment of doctoral studies held at the end of each academic year of the doctoral programme. The supervisor, another person involved in the supervision of the doctoral student, or the doctoral student themselves, may propose an extraordinary assessment of the doctoral studies.
2. The purpose of the assessment of doctoral studies is to evaluate the fulfilment of the obligations set out in the ISP; this may include an update to the ISP. The conditions for the recognition of study obligations, the presentation of the doctoral student’s work (publications, active participation in conferences, dissemination of research findings) and placements at other institutions are laid down by the dean’s ordinances.
3. For the assessment of doctoral studies, the student submits their self-assessment report, whilst the supervisor submits an assessment of the student’s progress in their evaluation report. The supervisor takes part in the assessment; the chair of the FSB may invite other persons to the meeting or part thereof, in particular the doctoral student and other persons involved in the supervision of the doctoral student. Minutes are taken of the proceedings of the assessment of doctoral studies.
4. The FSB shall decide on the outcome of the assessment in accordance with the rules set out in Article 7(6) and (7). None of the members present who are entitled to vote (Article 7(4), last sentence) may abstain from voting or cast an invalid vote. If the vote is not by secret ballot, the supervisor, any other person involved in the supervision of the doctoral student, or the student themselves may not be present.
5. The outcome of the assessment is one of the following conclusions stating that, during the period under review, the doctoral student:
   1. has fulfilled all the obligations set out in the ISP;
   2. has failed to fulfil only some of the requirements set by the ISP (e.g. failure to pass a single module/requirement taken for the first time);
   3. has seriously failed to fulfil the obligations set out by the ISP (failure to pass several modules enrolled in for the first time; failure to fulfil other obligations specified by the ISP or, in the case of full-time students, failure to fulfil the obligations set out by the teaching department);
   4. has failed to fulfil the obligations set out by the ISP in an exceptionally serious manner (failure to pass a course enrolled in repeatedly or to fulfil other obligations set out by the ISP, even within an extended deadline);

   the rules for determining individual assessment outcomes may be further specified by an ordinance issued by the dean.

6. Where it is concluded that a doctoral student has seriously failed to fulfil the obligations set by the ISP, the FSB shall propose to the dean an appropriate reduction or withdrawal of the doctoral scholarship awarded to, or which might be awarded to, that doctoral student. Details regarding the reduction or withdrawal of the doctoral scholarship, as well as any other possible consequences of this conclusion by the FSB in the case of any doctoral student, may be set out in an ordinance issued by the dean.
7. If the outcome of the assessment is a conclusion that the doctoral student has failed to fulfil the obligations set out in the ISP in an exceptionally serious manner, this is regarded as a failure to meet the study requirements; consequently, the dean shall decide to terminate the student’s studies. The chair of the FSB shall inform the dean of such a conclusion without undue delay.
8. If a doctoral student has objections to the conduct or outcome of the assessment, they must submit them in writing via IS/STAG no later than seven working days from the date on which they become aware of the assessment result; otherwise, their right to raise objections lapses.
9. Further details regarding the assessment of doctoral studies, in particular the range of documents on which the FSB bases its assessment, the method of informing the doctoral student of the assessment conclusion, and the procedure following the submission of objections in accordance with paragraph 8, including any consequences of their acceptance, shall be laid down by an ordinance issued by the dean.

1. The SDE is included in the studies for doctoral students enrolled before 1 March 2025, whose first term of study commenced before that date.
2. A doctoral student enrolled after 1 March 2025, nor a doctoral student enrolled before that date if their first term of instruction began after 1 March 2025, shall not sit the SDE. The final state examination for such a doctoral student shall consist solely of the defence of the DisP.
3. A doctoral student may register for the SDE after fulfilling all the obligations set out in the ISP, with the exception of modules directly related to the preparation of the DisP.
4. Details regarding registration for and the conduct of the State Final Examination are set out in the dean’s ordinances.

1. The SDE is held before the SDE committee; the members of the SDE committee and its chair are nominated to the dean by the FSB. The SDE committee shall have at least five members appointed by the dean from among persons who are professors, associate professors or adjunct professors, or other experts approved by the faculty’s scientific board to examine candidates in the SDE. The committee must include at least two members of the FSB; at least two members of the committee must not be academic staff of USB (hereinafter referred to as ‘external members’).
2. When determining the consequences of a doctoral student’s failure to attend the SDE, or their withdrawal from it, the procedure shall be similar to that set out in Article 26(8) to (10) of the undergraduate SER.
3. The SDE is graded as ‘passed’ or ‘not passed’.
4. Minutes are taken of the SDE and are stored in IS/STAG. If a doctoral student does not pass the SDE, the minutes must clearly state the reasons for this result, in as much detail as possible to allow for any subsequent review. The chair of the SDE committee is responsible for the accuracy and content of the record, which must allow for a possible review (Article 29(10) of the undergraduate SER), as well as for submitting the assessment within the time limit specified in Article 5(8) of the undergraduate SER. The minutes of the SDE are not made public.
5. If a doctoral student has objections to the conduct of the SDE, the procedure set out in Article 15(11) shall apply analogously.
6. If a doctoral student does not pass the SDE, i.e. undertakes it unsuccessfully, they may retake it once. The provisions of paragraphs 2 to 4 apply analogously to the resit. The dean may, in accordance with paragraph 1, appoint a new SDE committee for the resit; if he or she does not do so, it is deemed that he or she has appointed the SDE committee with the same composition for the resit. The dean may, in his or her decision, set a deadline by which a doctoral student who has failed the SDE is obliged to register to retake the SDE; in such a case, if the doctoral student does not register to retake the SDE within the specified deadline, this is deemed to be a failure to meet the study requirements; consequently, the dean shall decide to terminate the student’s studies.
7. If a doctoral student fails the SDE even at the resit, this is regarded as a failure to meet the study requirements; consequently, the dean will decide to terminate the student’s studies.
8. Further details regarding the organisation of the SDE, in particular the requirements for physical attendance, the quorum and the adoption of resolutions by the SDE committee, and, where applicable, the extent to which the procedure is conducted in accordance with the provisions governing the DisP defence, shall be laid down in an ordinance issued by the dean.

1. The doctoral thesis demonstrates the doctoral candidate’s ability to carry out independent scientific and research work or independent theoretical and creative artistic work. The doctoral thesis adheres to the principles of open science relevant to the given field. It takes the form of a collection of the doctoral candidate’s publications that have already been published or accepted for publication, accompanied by commentary, or the form of a manuscript; the DisP may include an artistic output or a functional prototype of technical equipment, a patent application for an invention, or technical documentation produced during research, development or innovation activities, or any other applied result of research, development or innovation.
2. The DisP must contain original and published results, or results accepted for publication. An essential part of the DisP must be the doctoral student’s explicit statement on the contribution of the research carried out and a discussion of the applicability of the results of the work.
3. The DisP must include a signed declaration of authorship in accordance with the relevant Rector’s ordinance.
4. If the DisP contains a publication or a manuscript that has already been submitted or accepted for publication and is the work of multiple authors, the doctoral student shall state their contribution to the publication as a percentage and attach to the DisP a declaration signed by the corresponding author specifying the extent of the doctoral student’s contribution. In the case of manuscripts not yet published, the doctoral student shall also state at what stage of the process leading to publication the manuscript is as at the date of submission of the DisP.
5. Further requirements regarding content and form, as well as the deadline, conditions and procedure for registering for the defence, including the method and formalities for submitting the DisP and any accompanying documents, shall be laid down by an ordinance issued by the dean.
6. The making of the DisP and related documents available to the public is governed by Section 47b of the Higher Education Act and the relevant regulation issued by the Rector; the dean’s regulation may set out further requirements. In accordance with the Higher Education Act, the following applies, amongst other things:
   1. A DisP submitted for defence must be made available to the public via IS/STAG at least five working days before the DisP defence takes place; DisPs that have already been made available to the public by other means shall not be published in IS STAG.
   2. The publication of a DisP or part thereof may be deferred in accordance with the provisions of Section 47b(4) of the Act; information regarding the deferral of publication, together with the reasons therefor, must be made available to the public in the database of qualification theses within IS/STAG.
   3. Without undue delay following the defence of the DisP, the reviewers’ reports and the record of the proceedings and outcome of the DisP defence shall be made available to the public via IS/STAG (Article 15(10)); this shall not apply if the DisP defence has been annulled (Article 15(11)).
7. The FSB approves at least two DisP reviewers from among experts in the relevant field. At least one of the reviewers must be a professor or associate professor. No more than one reviewer may be a member of the academic community at USB. In the case of foreign reviewers, the FSB assesses the qualifications of the proposed expert. In the case of a DisP defence of an interdisciplinary nature, reviewers must be selected from the various disciplines covered by the DisP; however, there must be no more than three. Neither the supervisor nor any other person involved in the supervision of the doctoral student may act as a reviewer for the DisP. The same applies to any co-authors of publications included in the DisP. Details regarding the preparation and submission of reviews, including the period granted to the doctoral student to familiarise themselves with the reviews, as well as the rules for checking the similarity of the DisP with other works, are set out in the dean’s ordinances.

1. The defence of the DisP takes place before a defence committee. The procedure for appointing this committee is similar to that set out in Article 13(1).
2. The student has the right to have the date of the defence set so that it takes place no later than six months after the submission of the application. No later than 15 days before the defence, the chair of the defence committee shall make the reviewers’ reports available to the members of the committee. The date of the defence must be published in the public section of the faculty’s website with the same advance notice.
3. The supervisor shall attend the DisP defence, including its closed session; another person involved in the supervision of the doctoral student is entitled to attend the SDE to the same extent. Neither of them is entitled to vote on the assessment. An ordinance issued by the dean may specify the requirements regarding the presence of the reviewers and the supervisor.
4. When determining the consequences of a doctoral student’s failure to attend the DisP defence, or their withdrawal, the procedure shall be similar to that set out in Article 26(8) to (10) of the undergraduate SER.
5. The DisP defence and the announcement of the results are open to the public. The deliberations of the defence committee regarding the outcome of the DisP defence are not open to the public.
6. During the DisP defence, the PhD student presents the results of their research, as set out in the DisP, to the committee. This is followed by comments from the external reviewers and a discussion between the student, the external reviewers present, the committee members and other participants in the DisP defence. The course of this discussion is recorded in detail in the minutes of the DisP defence. The chair of the defence committee ensures that any members of the public present have the opportunity to put forward their comments on the thesis; the doctoral student is obliged to address these during the defence.
7. The defence committee has a quorum if a majority of all its members are present, but at least four, and at the same time at least two external members. An external member may, at their request, attend remotely. Other members of the DisP defence committee may attend remotely, subject to the consent of the chair of the DisP defence committee, and only for serious, substantiated reasons. An ordinance issued by the dean may lay down further conditions for conducting a DisP defence in a hybrid format with some committee members participating remotely, as well as the conditions under which the dean may, for serious and substantiated reasons, permit a student to participate remotely in a DisP defence.
8. The defence committee shall vote by secret ballot. Members of the defence committee may only vote in favour of or against a motion. A motion is adopted if a simple majority of the members present vote in favour of it. In the event of remote participation by any member of the committee, voting shall take place via a suitable online application ensuring the secrecy of the vote. The voting record forms part of the minutes in accordance with paragraph 10.
9. The DisP defence is graded as ‘passed’ or ‘not passed’. If the defence committee decides that the doctoral student has not passed the DisP defence, it shall subsequently determine whether and how the DisP needs to be revised or supplemented. In such a case, the procedure shall be conducted in a manner analogous to the rules for the defence set out in Article 14. If the FSB does not approve new reviewers, the appointment of the original reviewers shall remain in force.
10. Minutes are taken of the DisP defence and are stored in IS/STAG. If a doctoral student does not pass the DisP defence, the minutes must clearly state the reasons for this result, in as much detail as possible to allow for any subsequent review. The chair of the defence committee is responsible for the accuracy and content of the record enabling any review (paragraph 11), as well as for ensuring that the assessment is submitted within the time limit specified in Article 5(8) of the undergraduate SER.
11. If a PhD student has any objections to the conduct of the DisP defence, they must raise them in writing via IS/STAG no later than seven working days after the defence has taken place; otherwise, their right to raise objections lapses. The dean shall, via the chair of the defence committee, request the committee’s written statement on the objections and, where necessary, any further relevant documentation, in particular written statements or personal statements from other individuals. The dean may review the DisP defence only in terms of procedure, not in terms of content or the adequacy of the assessment of the doctoral student’s performance. The dean shall decide on the doctoral student’s objections within 30 days. If the dean concludes that a breach of these Study and Examination Regulations or of the rules laid down in a dean’s ordinance, or of rules based on a dean’s ordinance as laid down by an FSB regulation, occurred during the DisP defence, and that this breach had or could have had an impact on the assessment of the DisP defence, the dean shall decide to annul it and set a new date for the DisP defence; if, following consultation with the chair of the FSB, the dean does not appoint a new defence committee, it shall be deemed that the dean has appointed a committee with the same composition for the new date of the DisP defence. Otherwise, the dean shall decide to confirm the result of the DisP defence, even if the doctoral student raises health or other serious grounds, although the consideration of such grounds is expressly excluded, in particular under Article 26(9) of the undergraduate SER. The dean may also annul the DisP defence on his own initiative, having first sought the opinion of the defence committee.
12. If a doctoral student does not pass the DisP defence, i.e. if they do not undertake it successfully, they may retake it once before reaching the maximum duration of studies. The provisions of paragraphs 2 to 11 apply analogously to the resit; however, the chair of the defence committee is obliged to set the date and venue for the DisP defence so that it takes place no later than three months after the submission of the application. The dean may, in accordance with the procedure set out in the second sentence of paragraph 1, appoint a new defence committee for the resit; if the dean fails to do so, it shall be deemed that the defence committee for the DisP resit has been appointed with the same composition. To undertake a resit DisP defence, the doctoral student is obliged to register no later than four months before the expiry of the maximum duration of their studies. Failure to do so shall be regarded as a failure to meet the study requirements; as a result, the dean shall decide to terminate the student’s studies.
13. If the doctoral student does not pass the DisP defence even at the resit, this is regarded as a failure to meet the study requirements; as a result, the dean will decide to terminate their studies.
14. Further details regarding the organisation of the DisP defence may be laid down by an ordinance of the dean.

1. Conflicts arising in the course of studies shall be resolved by the student, in the first instance, with their supervisor or, where appropriate, with other persons involved in the doctoral student’s supervision.
2. If a doctoral student believes that their supervisor is not fulfilling their duties towards them to the required or necessary extent, or that the supervisor is imposing unreasonable demands on them, they shall inform the chair of the FSB. The chair of the FSB shall investigate the matter without undue delay and, where appropriate, take such measures as are necessary to remedy the situation. If, at any time during the course of study, it becomes apparent that the supervisor is fundamentally failing to fulfil their duties towards the doctoral student, this shall constitute grounds for a change of supervisor (Article 5(6)).
3. The student has the right to request mediation from the SDS to resolve their problem. This in no way restricts their right to also contact the USB Ombudsman.

The specific provisions governing doctoral study in joint/double/multiple degree/cotuttelle programmes are set out in the dean’s ordinances; in matters not covered by the dean’s ordinances, the procedures set out in the Study and Examination Regulations shall apply.

1. Within the relevant DDP, whether undertaken on a full-time or part-time basis, a change in the form of studies is permitted.
2. A change in the form of studies is authorised by the dean on the basis of a reasoned request from the doctoral student; before issuing a decision, the dean shall seek the opinion of the supervisor, the DDP guarantor and the head of the supervising unit.
3. The dean shall not authorise a change in the form of studies if he or she concludes that the application is unfounded or that authorising the change would jeopardise the quality of the applicant’s doctoral studies.
4. The dean shall also not authorise a change from part-time to full-time study if the supervising unit objects to this in its opinion, or for other reasons specified in an ordinance issued by the dean.
5. If the conditions set out in paragraphs 3 or 4 are not met, the dean shall authorise the change in the form of studies.

1. The recognition and crediting of modules, interruption of studies, transfer to another programme, continuation of studies following the withdrawal of accreditation, and withdrawal from studies shall be governed by the relevant provisions of the undergraduate SER (particularly parts seven to nine).
2. In the case of doctoral students with special needs, doctoral students during a recognised period of parental leave, and doctoral students who are members of a national sports team or whose studies have been hindered by other exceptional circumstances, the relevant provisions of the undergraduate SER (in particular Articles 43 to 46) shall apply.

1. The dean shall decide to terminate studies due to failure to meet academic requirements if the doctoral student:
   1. has reached the maximum duration of studies (Article 3(3));
   2. at a faculty where the dean has stipulated in a decision that the ECTS system shall also be used to monitor study progress, has failed to meet the conditions for continuing their studies relating to the number of credits obtained during the assessment period (Article 4(1));
   3. has not submitted a draft ISP to the FSB within two months of enrolment or within a shorter period specified by the dean’s decision (Article 9(2));
   4. failed to submit a revised draft ISP to the FSB within the specified deadline (Article 10(2));
   5. failed to pass a course on which they were re-enrolled by the deadline set for its completion (Article 10(6));
   6. has failed, in an exceptionally serious manner, to fulfil the obligations laid down by the ISP, as revealed by the assessment of his doctoral studies by the FSB (Article 11(5)(d));
   7. in whose studies the SDE is included (Article 13(1)):
      1. has failed to register to sit the SDE within the deadline set by the dean’s ordinance, where such a deadline is specified (Article 12(4));
      2. has not successfully taken the SDE within the time limit set by the dean’s ordinance, where such a time limit is specified (Article 12(4));
      3. failed to register to retake the SDE within the deadline set by the dean’s ordinance, where such a deadline is specified (Article 13(5));
      4. failed the final state examination even at the resit (Article 13(7));
   8. has not registered to undertake a repeat defence at least four months before the expiry of the maximum duration of studies (Article 15(12));
   9. failed the thesis defence even during the resit period (Article 15(13)).
2. The dean shall also decide to terminate studies on the grounds of failure to meet study requirements in the case of a doctoral student:
   1. enrolled in a DDP in which medical fitness was stipulated as a condition for admission, if they have permanently lost the relevant medical fitness;
   2. who has been granted an exemption under paragraph 6, and who has failed to fulfil the relevant obligation even after the deadline for its fulfilment has been extended.
3. The dean shall decide to terminate studies on the grounds of failure to meet academic requirements also in the case of a person whose studies have been suspended, namely where that person:
   1. upon the expiry of the period for which their doctoral studies were suspended, or upon the expiry of the date on which the suspension of their doctoral studies was terminated, has not re-enrolled within the specified deadline (Article 37(11) of the undergraduate SER) and has not, within five working days of the specified deadline, requested an alternative deadline for re-enrolment, or has not re-enrolled by the alternative deadline either;
   2. if her doctoral studies were suspended due to a temporary loss of medical fitness (Article 36(4)(b) of the undergraduate SER) or due to non-payment of tuition fees (Article 36(5) of the undergraduate SER), she reached, in accordance with the 4(5), last sentence, of the undergraduate SER, have completed the maximum duration of studies specified in Article 3(3) during the period of interruption.
4. A doctoral student may avert the termination of their studies pursuant to paragraph 1(c), (d), (g)(i) and (iii), and (h), but no more than once per course of studies, provided that, at the latest in response to a request to comment on the supporting documents at within the specified deadline for submission of comments, the student carries out the relevant action to an acceptable standard. In such a case, the proceedings for termination of studies shall be suspended.
5. A person whose studies have been suspended may avert the termination of their studies under paragraph 3(a), but no more than once during their course of studies, provided that they re-enrol in the programme no later than in response to a request to comment on the supporting documents within the specified deadline for submission of comments. In such a case, the proceedings for the termination of studies shall be suspended.
6. The dean may, for serious reasons duly substantiated by the doctoral student, upon the student’s request submitted no later than before the decision on termination of studies is issued, grant the doctoral student an exemption consisting of a reasonable extension of the deadline for fulfilling the obligation which they have failed to meet, thereby fulfilling the condition for termination of studies, supplemented by the setting of individual deadlines, deadlines or other measures, with the aim of enabling the doctoral student to fulfil the condition in question within a reasonable timeframe and with the necessary cooperation from the faculty. If, despite the individual measures put in place, the doctoral student fails to fulfil the relevant requirement even after the deadline for its fulfilment has been extended, this shall automatically be deemed a failure to meet the study requirements; as a result, the dean shall decide to terminate the student’s studies. The dean shall make this decision without undue delay and shall no longer be authorised to grant a further exemption.
7. The same doctoral student may be granted an exemption for the same reason only once; an exemption may be granted for another reason only on the condition that it could not reasonably have been expected of them to prevent the serious circumstances leading to the failure to meet the study requirements by interrupting their studies.
8. The date of termination of studies due to failure to meet study requirements is the date on which the decision to terminate studies became final, even in the case of termination of studies for a person whose studies had been suspended in accordance with paragraph 3.
9. A person whose studies have been terminated with legal effect is obliged to settle all their obligations towards the faculty and other constituent parts of USB no later than seven calendar days from the date of termination of studies; the faculty shall notify them of this obligation.
10. The termination of studies does not affect the obligation to pay a fee relating to studies that has been finally assessed in accordance with Section 58(4) of the Act, even if the decision on the assessment of the fee, issued prior to the termination of studies, only becomes final after the decision on the termination of studies has become final. The termination of studies does not affect the right to appeal against the decision on the assessment of the fee.

Decisions on applications and other submissions by doctoral students shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Article 54 of the undergraduate SER.

1. The organisation of the 2025/2026 academic year shall be finalised in accordance with the existing regulations, even if it extends beyond the effective date of these Study and Examination Regulations. However, from the date of their entry into effect, these Study and Examination Regulations shall apply where they contain a provision that is more favourable to the doctoral student.
2. Procedures commenced prior to the date on which these Study and Examination Regulations come into effect shall be completed in accordance with the previous Study and Examination Regulations, unless these Study and Examination Regulations contain a provision that is more favourable to the doctoral student.
3. The dean shall issue an ordinance in accordance with Article 2 by 1 July 2027 at the latest, with effect no later than 1 September 2027. Until the measures referred to in the first sentence are issued, matters not covered by the Study and Examination Regulations shall be governed by the relevant regulations issued by the dean of the faculty prior to the date on which the Study and Examination Regulations take effect.
4. Faculties shall bring their practices into line with the first sentence of Article 4(1) by 31 December 2026.

1. These Study and Examination Regulations were approved by the USB Academic Senate on 17 June 2026 in accordance with Section 9(1)(b)(3) of the Act.
2. These Study and Examination Regulations come into force, in accordance with Section 36(4) of the Act, on the date of their registration by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports.
3. These Study and Examination Regulations take effect on the date of their publication in the public section of the USB website, but no earlier than 1 September 2026.

prof. Ing. Pavel Kozák, Ph.D., m.p.
Rector