Database of Precedents

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Lack of transparency and precise roles in criteria and procedure for selection of experts and guidelines for decision-making process.
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (19/04/2025)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“While the external review report states that AAQ and SAR function well together as a unit, the external review panel considered that the “allocation of duties should be presented with greater transparency in the relevant guidelines” (p. 25). The Register Committee noted that further comments regarding a certain lack of transparency of the precise roles of AAQ and SAR were made by the panel with regard to the criteria and procedure for selection of experts (see 2.4) as well as guidelines for SAR’s decision deviating from the expert-recommended decisions (see 2.5).The Register Committee considered that transparency is crucial especially in a layered system such as that of AAQ and SAR.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Publication of negative reports
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (19/04/2025)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The external review report pointed out that, based on the legal framework in Switzerland, AAQ considered that the publication of the full accreditation report, even with a positive result, would require the consent of the higher education institution concerned.The report considered that – thus far – AAQ was able to agree upon the publication of reports with the higher education institutions on an individual case basis, through corresponding passage in the contracts; it had the express support of the Board of swissuniversities in doing so.

The report further notes that “AAQ currently has no option to effect the publication of negative decisions” (p. 37-38).The external review panel took the view that nothing stood in the way of publishing all reports in full, given that the applicable law included an indirect reference to the ESG and, at the same time, no explicit provision that forbids the publication of full reports.[...]. The panel noted (see letter of 3/11/16) that the possibility of a report not being published was “at the moment a mere theoretical one”, and that AAQ seemed to “avoid discussions of legal theory as long as all works well”. The Register Committee considered that in practice all positive reports are published. It welcomed the agreement of swissuniversities to that effect, while noting that it constitutes a political and not a legally binding commitment.Considering the panel report, clarification and – most importantly – AAQ's own statement, the Register Committee found no evidence that AAQ would interpret the law as suggested by the panel, or refuse to enter a contract with a higher education institution that does not agree to the publication of the report.The Register Committee therefore concluded that there is a possibility – even though theoretical – that a higher education institution may refuse the publication of the accreditation report.

The Committee also noted that the existing arrangements do not affect procedures resulting in a negative decision.

The Register Committee therefore concluded that AAQ’s practice did not change compared to the time when it was admitted (then as OAQ) to the Register, and the issue of publication of reports was flagged for future attention.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Limited scope of complaints
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that AAQ and SAR provide a formalised complaints process for higher education institutions. The external review panel was, however, “more critical of the limited subject scope of the complaints procedure because, (…), higher education institutions can currently only complain about SAR’s decisions and not about possible errors in the implementation of the procedure” (p. 41).”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Organisational and operational independence
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee noted that the review panel confirmed the organisational independence of SAR and AAQ in practice, despite a residual potential influence by the agency’s sponsors and clients, which was described as a “risk to the agency’s independence that should not be underestimated” (p. 48-49).While the review panel considered that the concrete organisation of the selection procedure of SAR members guarded against any possibility that one side may exert a particular influence, the review panel noted that the selection procedure was not codified in any official document. Consequently, the panel recommended to specify the selection procedures and criteria in a binding document.The review panel further noted that SAR applies equivalent principles of conduct than AAQ, but that this was not sufficiently transparent at the present. The panel advised SAR to set down these principles in its own code of conduct or, for example, to adopt AAQ’s existing code of conduct, and to ultimately publish its code of conduct.”

Full decision: see agency register entry