By registering for an examination, the student makes a declaration of intent to take an examination. Upon admission to the examination, a special legal relationship under public law, the so-called examination agreement, is established between the candidate and the legal entity whose bodies (examinations offices) are responsible for conducting the examination. 
The examination agreement contains mutual rights and obligations. The examining authority, for example, has a duty of care and a duty to provide information; the candidate has a duty to cooperate. However, candidates also have the right to an objective assessment of their examination performance.

The examination agreement ends when the respective individual examinations are either passed or definitively failed as a result of inadequate performance. Other options include withdrawal, absence without good cause, exclusion due to cheating or independent de-registration within the scheduled period of the online examination administration. Written registration directly with the lecturer does not include a possible de-registration period without a valid reason. The examination agreement shall then apply immediately and bindingly.

The content of the examination agreement is governed by the relevant examination regulations. In order to interpret this set of rules and fill any regulatory gaps, focus is placed in particular on the fundamental rights guaranteed by Art. 3.1 and 12.1 of the Constitution (GG) in addition to unwritten legal principles such as the principle of good faith. According to this, it is necessary to give the candidates competing in the examination equal starting chances, in particular through the design of the examination procedure. This is the principle of equal opportunities.

(cf. Fischer/Jeremias/Dieterich, Prüfungsrecht (Examination Law) 8th edition 2022 margin no. 13 – 18).

Assessment regulations can be found in the relevant examination regulations. These not only set out the regulations on module examination formats but also assessment regulations (grading). Only the grade values specified in the examination regulations may be used.

Extract from Section 13.2.2 of the BPO (Bachelor’s Examination Regulations):
“For a differentiated assessment, grades may be raised or lowered by 0.3  (grades of 0.7; 4.3; 4.7 and 5.3 are not possible).”

The objective of the examination can only be achieved if there is a sufficient basis for the final assessment. The examination tasks must be suitable for differentiating candidates who have achieved the educational objective from those who have not.

The assessment shall be reliably determined solely on the basis of the candidate's true knowledge and skills. Assessment errors such as arbitrary decision-making and extraneous considerations must be avoided. It is imperative that the principle of equal value be observed.

Furthermore, the general assessment principles shall apply:

• A balance must be maintained with the requirements that are generally made in the aspired profession.
• In principle, the performance of the individual candidate must be assessed in isolation to see whether it meets the objective requirements set by the objective of the examination.
• It is not permitted to withdraw content-related requirements or relativize the assessment criteria due to the candidate’s personal circumstances. Compensation for disadvantages must be approved and decided by the competent body.
• The principle of equal opportunities must always be observed.
• With the exception of the principle of equality (Art. 3.1 of the Constitution), special fundamental rights of the candidate shall not influence the expert assessment of their performance. Thus, an examination performance may be criticised as ‘non-academic’ without legal error, without the candidate being able to successfully assert their fundamental right to academic freedom (Art. 5.3 of the Constitution). Similarly, freedom of conscience (Art. 4.1 of the Constitution) does not prevent examination components not taken for reasons of conscience from being assessed to the detriment of the candidate when deciding on the examination result.
• As a generally valid assessment principle, the requirement of objectivity demands an impartial assessment of the individual examination component without regard to the person. The examiner should consider the examination paper with a detached mind, free of emotions, and should endeavour to correctly understand the candidate's statements and engage with their thought processes.

De-registration from an examination during the set registration and de-registration period in the online examination administration does not require any proof. 

Once the registration and de-registration period has come to an end, the examination agreement is established and it is only possible to withdraw from the examination for good cause. A special case is the written exam, where, for example, it is possible in accordance with the Bachelor’s Examination Regulations to withdraw without giving reasons up to one week before it is scheduled to take place. However, the provisions laid out in the respectively valid examination regulations must be observed here.

Illnesses are in particular considered good cause if they mean that the candidate is unable to sit the examination, as well as significant disruption due to external factors (e.g. noise, cold). A sudden tragedy, such as the death of a close family member, also constitutes good cause owing to the considerable emotional distress associated with this, provided that the event in question occurs close in time to the examination.

The Examinations Office must be informed and provided with evidence of the good cause immediately, i.e. without undue delay, in all cases. 

Anyone who registers for an examination despite being aware of a physical or mental health problem or impairment and takes the examination against express medical advice, is making a risk-related decision for which they are accountable and which no longer justifies the right to later withdraw from the examination.

Every examination attempt must be documented with the Examinations Office.

The difference between deadlines and appointments is set out in Section 31 of the Administrative Procedures Act (VwVfG). Appointments must therefore be kept even when they fall on a Saturday, a Sunday or a public holiday (Section 31.3 of the VwVfG). By contrast, deadlines set by an authority can be extended, even retroactively, in particular if it would be unreasonable to allow the legal consequences of the expiry of the deadline to continue (Section 31.7 of the VwVfG).

Appointments are therefore fixed dates preceded by a proper invitation. This means that details of the time and venue of the examination as well as any aids that should be brought and the name of the examiner must be provided. The examining authority must provide evidence of this invitation. The online examination administration covers this invitation.

The fixed dates of a written exam or an oral/practical examination are therefore considered appointments. By contrast, submission periods for written papers such as seminar papers are, for example, deadlines. These submission periods may be extended for important and valid reasons with due regard to equal opportunities. Respect for equal opportunities precludes an individual extension without good cause. 

An extension of a deadline which is more than double the initially set deadline is contrary to equal opportunities and must be rejected. Here, the candidate’s duty to cooperate and the lecturer's assessment duties apply in equal measure. 

Anyone who misses an examination shall have their examination attempt marked as 'failed’. The same shall apply if a deadline is not met.

Compensation for disadvantages means compensation measures where the candidate is given the opportunity to demonstrate existing knowledge and skills under the creation of uniform conditions by compensating for their difficulties. 

Temporary impairments are compensated for first and foremost. At this point, it is important to check which capability is to be determined by the examination and whether this examination is to be taken into account in the related profession. 

Disabilities and permanent impairments which, as personality-related characteristics, define the candidate’s cognitive performance cannot be compensated for. 

In the case of a (permanent) limitation of the candidate’s cognitive performance, the principle of equal opportunities under examination law does not generally require or justify consideration of the candidate’s personal impairments in the form of compensation for disadvantages , if the candidate is (also) supposed to show that they can cope with such difficulties and therefore possesses the basic requirements for the aptitude of a specific profession or specific training to be determined by the examination. The (legal) question of whether and in what form compensation for disadvantages should be granted is, as with assessing a candidate's inability to sit an examination, a matter for the examining authority to consider under their own responsibility without being bound by the (legal) assessments of an expert. 

It is important that compensation for disadvantages does not lead to over-compensation, i.e. to an unfair advantage for the candidate in question; nor may it be accompanied by a modification of the contents of the examination. 

The applicable examination regulations state that priority should be given to modifying the external examination conditions, extending the deadline or establishing a different examination format in an equivalent form.

Equivalence is to be defined very narrowly. Consideration should be given to what skills the original examination requires, e.g. it must be possible to ensure in a written exam that a task can be completed in a limited time, with limited resources and using the subject’s usual methods. 

Conversely, in the case of a seminar paper, the objective is to write a subject-specific or interdisciplinary paper independently and in-depth.

The two types of examinations therefore test different skills. Written exams and seminar papers are therefore not usually subject to compensation.

The application must be made to the Examinations Office. The necessary suitable evidence must be submitted.