Doctoral Thesis Tribunal

The applicant also argued that the Appeals Board decision was unreasonable.

Tags: Level 1 History Model EssaysSix Sigma Case Studies In HealthcareEssay Of VolleyballKeywords For Grad School EssaysMaster Thesis Web DevelopmentExample Essay About YourselfPerformance Research PapersWhat Is Meant By Critical ThinkingHow To Proofread An Essay

Leiden Law School Successful completion of the procedure to obtain a doctorate culminates in the conferral of the academic degree of Doctor in a specific subject.

In order to obtain a doctorate degree independent and original research must be carried out under the guidance of a supervisor and co-supervisor.

Cookie usage policy The website of the University Carlos III of Madrid use its own cookies and third-party cookies to improve our services by analyzing their browsing habits.

By continuing navigation, we understand that it accepts our cookie policy. The majority of members must be from external institutions; therefore, only one of them can be from the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid faculty.

When the defense takes place at the foreign university must also submit in the Academic Committee the official certificate of the stays carried out and the tribunal proposal made by the other university.

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – University Appeal Board – Adjournment of hearing – Judicial review – Appeals – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness- Universities – Student discipline , [2019] O. The Appeals Board upheld the decision of the Tribunal on both liability and penalty.

The doctoral thesis shall be defended in one of the universities or participating institutions and the doctoral student gets a Ph D degree certificate from each university.

The Ph D student must fill in the application form (Anexo I) for the co-tutorship and submit it to the Academic Committee of the Ph D programme where is enrolled, attaching the documentation indicated in the application form.

The Court held that it was not essential to bifurcate liability and penalty as the Tribunal provided the applicant with notice that there is only one proceeding before the Tribunal and therefore, the Appeals Board decision to proceed directly to the penalty hearing was reasonable.

With respect to the merits of the Appeals Board decision, the Court held that it was “manifestly reasonable” not to intervene in the Tribunal’s decision.