Database of Precedents

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/03/2023
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Independence of the appeal's body
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The panel argued that there was “no avenue available to have an

external review of a decision” and noted the “absence of external

adjudication in the mechanism used”. The Register Committee expects that

an appeal is considered by another body than the one whose

decision/report is appealed (see interpretation 13 of the ESG); this will

nevertheless normally be a body of the agency, as the standard requires an

internal appeals process (see also interpretation 12 of the ESG). As the

HAHE appeals committee consists of different persons than the (current)

EAC, this requirement is formally fulfilled, even if HAHE may reconsider the

practice of appointing only retired EAC members when it reviews its

appeals procedures as recommended by the panel, Further, the fact that the appeals' committee makes a recommendation to the

EAC is compatible with EQAR's expectations (see interpretation 14 of the

ESG).”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/03/2023
Standard	3.4 Thematic analysis
Keywords	Content of the thematic analysis
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“From several Annual reports of the agency from recent years, the Committee learned that the agency provides key figures on its work, but

also provides an in-depth overview of the compliance levels per standard in the undertaken accreditation procedures, summarises the good practices and obstacles observed in HEIs, and presents the most common recommendations by the panels.Following this, the Register Committee found that the current practice fulfils the minimum ESG criteria”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	30/06/2023
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	Methodology and criteria for the different re-accreditation period inconsistent
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (15/02/2023)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“12. The Committee noted from the panel’s report that it is now clear what level of compliance a programme must achieve to receive the full 8-year accreditation period. At the same time, the definition of shorter accreditation periods remained unclear: the panel also confirmed in its clarification that there are no specific criteria or guidelines that determine by how much the period gets shortened.

13. In its additional representation the agency explained its methodology and criteria for the different re-accreditation period. While the Register Committee found a clear reasoning in the agency’s response, the Committee could not understand why the cited information (i.e. table and explanation provided) was not integrated in the agency’s procedures i.e., Accreditation Procedures and Standards. In particular, the Committee found the provided information on the length of the accreditation cycle i.e., of five years, to be completely missing from the agency’s procedure for re-accreditation (see Accreditation Procedures and Standards 5.3 – November 2019 Section 3.2.4.2.1).

14. Given the inconsistencies in the agency’s explanations and the presentation of ECTE’s criteria in its own procedures, the Register Committee was not persuaded that the agency ensured a consistent application of its criteria in its decision making.

15. The Committee also considered that this issue was amplified by the fact that there is no decision document (see also ESG 2.6), i.e., the Quality Assurance & Accreditation Committee’s (QAAC’s) considerations and argumentation on why a certain length of accreditation period was decided are currently not recorded in any public document.

16. The Register Committee thus remained unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion, but considered that ECCE only partially complied with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	30/06/2023
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Publication of Accreditation Decisions
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (15/02/2023)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“17. The Register Committee noted that the decisions of the Quality Assurance & Accreditation Committee’s (QAAC) are published only in the form of the accreditation period being presented on the web page listing accredited programmes (https://cce-europe.org/index.php/accredited-institutions.html). The list contains links to the expert review reports, but not to the QAAC decision as a separate document or similar.

18. The standard requires that “if the agency takes any formal decision based on the reports, the decision should be published together with the report”.The Register Committee assumed that a written record of the QAAC decision presumably exists in some form, either as a document sent to the accredited programme or as section in the QAAC minutes. The review panel clarified that it was not aware of the QAAC decision being available a separate document.

19. In its additional representation the agency stated that what is published on its website i.e., the dates of when the institution was first accredited, the most recent decision and the date of when the accreditation runs out represent, next to the generic statement on its website - that a programme meets ECCE’s criteria and standards for accredited status - represents its decision.

20. The Register Committee underlined that the standard aims to ensure reliable documentation and transparency of the agency's outcomes and the mere publication of the date of the accreditation does not suffice.

21. The Committee further disagrees with the agency’s claim that its objection are technical in nature. The Committee emphasised that QAAC decisions are not recorded in writing at all (beyond the dates cited on the web page) and that ECCE does not provide any information to the public on e.g., when such a decision was taken, the basis of QAAC’s decision making, the rationale for QAAC in agreeing/disagreeing with the findings of the panel or any recording of a possible conflict of interests with the institution applying for ECCE accreditation.

22. The Register Committee therefore could not concur with the panel’s conclusion that ECCE complies with the standard, but found ECCE to be only partially compliant.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	30/06/2023
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	no possibility to appeal the formal decisions
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (15/02/2023)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“23. The panel raised concerns about the slight unclarity and overlap between the “appeals and complaints procedure” and the separate “complaints procedure”. Even though the wording is unusual, the Register Committee considered that both appeals and complaints, as understood in the ESG, are generally possible.

24. The Committee obtained clarification by the panel on the composition of the Appeals Committee. Even though the members are different from the QAAC, the Committee shares the panel’s concern that all but one come from the rather small chiropractic community.

25. The Register Committee’s further noted that there is no possibility to appeal the formal decision by the QAAC, only the expert report. The Committee regarded this as problematic given that the QAAC alone decides on the accreditation term.

26. In its additional representation the agency explained that the judgement itself of the QAAC cannot be appealed solely on the basis of disagreement with the decision, but can be made based on incorrect procedures, or if it was executed in an unfair and discriminatory manner. The Committee thus understood that while ECCE makes possible appeals based on procedural error, errors of fact, mitigating circumstances where material was not available at the time and for situation where members of QAAC or ECCE behaved in a discriminatory or unprofessional manner, the agency does not allow for an appeal of QAAC’s judgement itself. The Committee thus finds that the appeals process is limited, given that the reviewed higher education institution may not challenge based on e.g., criteria that may have not been correctly applied or disagreements in how standards were interpreted by QAAC.

27. The Committee noted that the agency considered and upheld an appeal against a QAAC formal decision, but also noted that there is no public documentation on this appeal and that the agency does not have any information on its website on the composition of its Appeal’s Committee.

28. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel’s conclusion that ECCE only partially complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	30/06/2023
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	Involvement of student members in the governing/accreditation body
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (15/02/2023)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“29. The panel clarified that ECCE had a clear strategy that guided its work; even if the official documents were sometime incoherent in wording, they were coherent in substance.

30. The panel further clarified that ECCE should have been more attentive and flexible as regards the appointment of a new student member to QAAC. The practice led to a student member being absent from QAAC for some time, which could have been avoided if ECCE had been more concerned to prevent this with priority.

31. Having considered the panel's clarification, the Register Committee was able to concur with the panel's conclusion that ECCE partially complies with the standard.

32. The review report explains that ECCE does not provide consultancy themselves but “offers the names and contact details of highly qualified independent educationalists to new chiropractic programmes to assist them with the development of their programmes” (report, p. 14).

33. While the Register Committee considered that these did not appear to be problematic, it found that this should be discussed in more detail in the next review of ECCE.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	30/06/2023
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Overlapping responsibilities between different bodies/ Lack of diversity
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“34. The panel raised issues related to the high involvement of representatives of accredited institutions, amplified by the small size of the chiropractic community, as well as the overlapping responsibilities between different agency bodies. In particular, the panel regarded critically the ex-officio mutual memberships of the Executive Committee and QAAC chairperson in the respective other committee, the involvement of both bodies in the QA process and the close involvement of the QAAC in pre-screening self-evaluation reports.

35. In light of these concerns, the Register Committee concurred with the panel’s conclusion that ECCE only partially complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	25/10/2022
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	lack of consistency, unclear understanding of multi-level compliance scale
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“8.The panel considered that SKVC's criteria are lacking clarity, especially with regard to the exact understanding of the 5-level scale used by SKVC. The panel recommended developing guidelines for interpretation of each level to enhance consistency of their use.

9.The Committee understood that the current situation as described and analysed by the panel might lead to a lack of consistency.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	25/10/2022
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	lack of internal appeals process for HEIs in exile
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“13. The Register Committee shared the panel's reservations that the inability for higher education institutions in exile to use SKVC's internal appeals process is a shortcoming.

14. Given that this only concerns one single institution at the moment and no accreditation has taken place so far, the Committee, however, did not consider this shortcoming material enough to influence the conclusion per this standard and concurred with the panel's conclusion that SKVC complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	25/10/2022
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	involvement of ministry in accreditation of HEIs in exile
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“15. The review panel noted some concerns about the process of ex-post accreditation of higher education institutions in exile, especially given the direct involvement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the evaluation, i.e. certain standards being assessed by the Ministry instead of the panel of experts.

16. The Register Committee considered that the rationale might lie in the obvious political and diplomatic dimensions involved and that this might justify distributed responsibilities in principle. The Committee, however, considered that it must be transparent to the public what is an assessment made by SKVC and its independent expert panels, and what part of the assessment is made by the Ministry, potentially taking into account political considerations. The Committee recommends that SKVC and the Ministry explore how to disentangle political/diplomatic considerations and quality assessments fully, e.g. by having the Ministry make a separate assessment and decision either preceding SKVC's quality assessment, or following a decision by SKVC.

17. Given the rare occurrence of these procedures and the brief analysis by the panel on the matter, the Register Committee was unable to draw a definitive conclusion; the independence and transparency in these procedures should thus receive close attention in SKVC's next review.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	25/10/2022
Standard	3.5 Resources
Keywords	reliance on temporary funding sources, state budget allocations insufficient
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“20. The panel discussed SKVC funding, relying on sources from several channels. In particular, SKVC's activities still partly depended on EU structural funds, which are temporary by nature. The panel further noted that the funding from Lithuania's state budget seemed to be insufficient to support the agency's activities sustainably.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/03/2023
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	students, panel members
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (17/02/2023)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“10. The panel noted that the internal system of the agency generally aimed to have students in every expert panel, in each of ANECA’s procedure. The panel, however, found out that the majority of AUDIT INTERNATIONAL experts panels did not include students (see clarification of 2023-02-17).

11. According to the panel, ANECA found it challenging to ensure student participation in these experts panel due to the limited availability of the students. The Committee acknowledged that recruiting student experts might be more difficult for some reviews than for others, but underlined that this challenge has to be addressed by any agency and cannot serve as a reason to carry out reviews without student panel members.

12. Given the absence of students from most expert panels for AUDIT INTERNATIONAL, the Register Committee was unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion, but concluded that ANECA only partially complies with ESG 2.4.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/03/2023
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	reports, publication
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (17/02/2023)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“14. The panel reported that all reports from programme evaluations were now published on ANECA’s website in a more extensive format; for SIC, AUDIT and AUDIT INTERNATIONAL the agency published the full expert reports.

17. The panel further explained (see clarification) that in programme evaluations the external review reports are prepared by ANECA’s Committees, based on the initial experts’ reports and following the multiple-stage process that is described in the review report. For SIC, AUDIT and AUDIT international procedures the panel noted that ANECA did not have the same practice and specific committees preparing external review reports, but instead considered the full experts’ reports as final report.

18. Having thus considered the report and the clarification, the Committee concluded that the two step approach, where the external review reports are prepared by internal specialised committees, might mean that the full content of the reports prepared by the panel would not be publicly known. Further, the Committee could not, based on the evidence provided by the panel, identify "before" and "after" examples of programme evaluation reports, and hence understand what "more extensive" might mean in practice, and was therefore unable to concur with the panel assessment of compliance.

19. The Committee therefore concluded that ANECA is not living up to the intentions of standard 2.6 which states that "full reports by the experts should be published”. Therefore, the Register Committee concluded that ANECA only partially complies with ESG 2.6.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	25/10/2022
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	how ESG 1.9 is addressed in AQU’s activities
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee noted that in the implementation of ESG 1.9 the review panel considered how AQU’s different activities address the cyclicity of external reviews. The Committee, however, underlined that the focus of the standard is on the monitoring and periodical review of programmes as part of the institutions internal QA, ensuring that objectives set for the programmes are achieved and that monitoring processes lead to the continuous improvement of the programme.

Given that the Register Committee was unable to draw a definitive conclusion on how ESG 1.9 is addressed in AQU’s activities, the issue should thus receive close attention in AQU’s next review.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	25/10/2022
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	publication of reports from ex-ante accreditation
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its previous renewal decision, the Register Committee noted that AQU publishes all reports except those from ex-ante evaluations that result in a negative accreditation decision. The review panel reports that AQU now publishes all review reports, independent of their outcome. The Committee also noted that reports with a negative ex-ante accreditation outcome are released with an initial page warning that the degree will not be taught. While the practice of publishing ex-ante reports with a negative outcome was originally met with unease by the institutions whose study programme was rejected, there now is an agreement within AQU on the value of ensuring accountability and trust in the whole system. In relation to the AQU reports for the ex-ante accreditation of short learning programmes (SLP) and micro-credentials, the Committee noted that the agency struggles in scaling the demands of accrediting such programmes, in particular ensuring the proportionate length and detail in its reporting. The Committee underlined the panel’s suggestion on expanding the level of detail and analysis in reports for SLPs to facilitate the usability by various stakeholders and to reflect the detailed evaluation work of the experts. Having considered the change in practice in the publication of negative ex-ante reports, the Register Committee concurred with the panel’s conclusion that AQU now complies with ESG 2.6.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	25/10/2022
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	composition of governing bodies; independence of the appeals process; financial independence
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its previous decision the Register Committee underlined the concerns of the panel with regard to the overlap in the composition of the agency’s different bodies. The review panel found that AQU has separated the membership of its strategic and oversight bodies from its specific commissions and review panels. The Register Committee welcomed these changes, including the appointment of two non-local members to the Appeals Committee, but noted that the Chair of the Appeals Committee is a member of the Governing Board. While the role of the members in the Governing Board is limited to the strategic decision-making and management of the organisation, the Register Committee found that the involvement of a representative of the Board (in particular as a Chair) in the Appeals Committee might put undue pressure in the discussion and decision-making of the Appeals Committee. The Register Committee nevertheless agreed that the Appeals Committee was sufficiently independent given that the AQU’s Governing Board does not adopt the reports or decisions that are being appealed. The Register Committee further noted that AQU’s funding comes primarily from the Government of Catalonia (about 90% of the agency’s budget) and is allocated on an annual basis. The Committee welcomed AQU’s plans to move to a four-year contract with the Government of Catalonia, which could further improve its operational independence. Considered the steps taken to separate the membership of the agency’s strategic and oversight bodies, the Register Committee could follow the panel’s conclusion that AQU now complies with the standard ESG 3.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	25/10/2022
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	Student involvement in decision making bodies
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“ANQA involves students in the review panels, but not in the body

responsible for making decisions on accreditation (i.e. the Accreditation

Council). The Committee highlighted the panel’s recommendation and

found it necessary that the agency improves the involvement of students in

the decision-making process.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	14/03/2022
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	Involvement of stakeholders in governing bodies; Lack of clear policy for separation of EQA and consultancy activities and preventing conflict of interest
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The governing body (i.e. the Managing Board) of the agency does not involve other stakeholders than academics. The agency has not published any policy or statements in regards to the separation of its consultancy activities and preventing conflicts of interest.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	14/03/2022
Standard	3.4 Thematic analysis
Keywords	Content of the thematic analysis
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“the content of the thematic publications mainly involved reflections on the agency’s own experiences in conducting EQA rather than analysis of the results of the EQA (an analysis which could be more appropriate to serve the internal quality assurance processes, ESG 3.6). The Committee agreed with the panel’s views that the agency could improve the content of the analyses so they are more meaningful for the wider academic and QA community”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Focused, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	12/12/2021
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Lack of an independent appeals committee and limited coverage of appeals
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (07/12/2021)
RC decision	Compliance

“In its decision of rejection (of June 2020), the Register Committee noted that AKAST’s appeals and complaints procedure did not cover the peer institutional evaluation procedures and that the appeals were only considered by the same committee that also took the appealed decision. While AKAST agreed to revise its procedure and to establish a complaints committee consisting of independent members, the Register Committee remained unable to follow the panel’s judgment of compliance since the procedure was not yet in operation and the committee handling appeals has not been elected. 8. The panel notes that AKAST has now a revised complaints and appeals regulation and has elected a Complaints Committee at the AKAST General Meeting on 28/01/2021. In the description of the provisions for complaints (AKAST Complaints and Appeals Regulations as amended on 28/01/2021), the agency noted that the Complaints Committee’s statement is to be taken into account in the final decision of the Executive Board or the Accreditation Committee and that further details shall be regulated in the rules of procedure issued by the Complaints Committee and approved by the Executive Board.”

Full decision: see agency register entry