Prosecutor's plagiarism case: Court to reconsider degree annulment

Latvia's Supreme Court has mandated that the Administrative Regional Court reconsider a case involving prosecutor Uldis Cinkmanis, whose bachelor's degree in law was annulled by the University of Latvia (LU).

“

The Administrative Regional Court must once again review the case in which the University of Latvia (LU) decided to revoke the bachelor's degree in law granted to prosecutor Uldis Cinkmanis, the Supreme Court informed.

The initial decision by LU, supported by the law firm "Cobalt," was to revoke Cinkmanis's degree and cancel his diploma. This action was taken after discovering signs of plagiarism in his 2008 bachelor's thesis.

Cinkmanis appealed the decision, arguing that the revocation was unlawful because it was not made within a reasonable timeframe and was disproportionate. The Administrative Regional Court initially sided with Cinkmanis, stating that the annulment was unlawful. The court noted that Cinkmanis had since obtained a master's degree without any plagiarism issues, and that the plagiarism in his bachelor's work did not involve falsification, nor was it found in the conclusions. Furthermore, the court deemed the topic not significant in legal science and the findings outdated.

“

This decision provides significant guidelines for higher education institutions when deciding on actions in cases where an academic degree has been obtained by violating academic integrity requirements. At the same time, the Senate reminds that such decisions are not acceptable formally, and the university must be able to justify why, under the specific circumstances, the annulment of the diploma is necessary and proportionate.

Consequently, the court concluded that Cinkmanis's actions did not cause sufficient harm to public interest or the university's prestige to warrant revoking his degree and diploma. The court suggested that publicizing the plagiarism finding and the resulting public attention would have been a less restrictive alternative to address academic dishonesty.

“

The court indicated that the most serious form of plagiarism – forgery – was not found in the bachelor's work, nor was plagiarism found in its conclusions, and the topic studied could not be considered significant in legal science, while the findings expressed in the work were no longer current.

However, LU filed a cassation appeal against this ruling. The Supreme Court agreed with significant arguments from "Cobalt," acknowledging that the regional court had indeed made errors in evaluating the expediency and proportionality of the university's decision. The Supreme Court stated that the regional court's analysis of the administrative act's expediency was flawed and that the identified shortcomings could have led to an incorrect resolution of the case. The Supreme Court also noted that the regional court did not reference legal norms that would obligate or entitle the university to inform the public about discovered plagiarism, thus it should not have considered this as a less restrictive alternative for Cinkmanis.

“

The Supreme Court did not agree with the regional court's analysis of the expediency of the administrative act and recognized that the admitted shortcomings could have led to an incorrect resolution of the case.