Grade disputes — appeals against a mark given in an examination, a course or a semester — are governed in Georgian higher education by paragraphs 6 and 11 of Article 43 and by Article 16 of the Law on Higher Education. The law sets the decisive standard here: a higher education institution is obliged to ensure the fair assessment of the student's knowledge. The composition of a specific appeal commission and its deadlines are determined by the institution's charter, but the requirement of fairness of assessment derives from the law itself and cannot be restricted by the charter.
The duty of fair assessment — the foundation of a grade appeal
Paragraph 6 of Article 43 provides that the higher education institution is obliged to ensure the fair assessment of the student's knowledge, for which purpose it develops appropriate procedures. This norm underlies every grade appeal: where an assessment is non-objective, unfair or rests on an undefined procedure, the institution breaches its own obligation.
The development of appropriate procedures is not a formality: it implies transparent criteria, a declared assessment procedure, and grading based not on the lecturer's discretion but on a standard known in advance. If the student does not know by which criteria they were assessed, or the criteria were changed after the assessment, the position in an appeal becomes significantly stronger.
The principle of transparency — a general standard of governance
Article 16 lays down the principles of governance of a higher education institution. Under sub-paragraph "a" of paragraph 1, the institution ensures the publicity and accessibility of its decisions, the reports of its governance organs and its legal acts to all interested persons. On a non-entrepreneurial legal entity founded by the state, the information-freedom norms established by the General Administrative Code of Georgia apply, and the institution must have developed transparent decision-making procedures.
Paragraph 2 of the same article provides that the charter of the institution and the regulations of its structural units may not establish norms restricting these principles. This means that the transparency envisaged by the law cannot be restricted by an internal act — accordingly, a closed, opaque appeal procedure contradicts the principle of the law.