Precedents database

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ASHE
Decision of	15/10/2021
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Integrity/conflict of interest
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee noted that the members of ASIIN’s technical committees can simultaneously hold the position of an external reviewer for ASIIN’s review panels, which would put them in a conflict of interest when discussing the reports prepared by the same panel they were members of.

23. Considering the panel’s concern of a potential conflict of interest resulting from this arrangement, the Committee concluded in its initial decision that ASIIN complied only partially with ESG 3.3.

24. In its Appeal of 20/01/2022, ASIIN challenged the Committee’s conclusion and judgment arguing that the independent decision making of its Technical Committee was not compromised. The agency made the case that the involvement of active experts as members within ASIIN’s 14 Technical Committees ensured a consistent application of procedures and criteria in the preparation of accreditation reports. ASIIN further explained that ASIIN’s Technical Committees did not have any decision-making power as regards the accreditation decision. Moreover, the experts involved in the procedure would regularly abstain.

25. The Committee welcomed the abstention of the Technical Committee members, but could not determine if the practice of abstention was institutionalised in ASIIN’s procedure.

26. The Register Committee further underlined that the integrity of the review process could be better safeguarded by ensuring that members of the Technical Committees would not partake at all (i.e. by leaving the room) when their report is considered by the Technical Committee.

27. Having weighed the limited role of the Technical Committee in ASIIN’s decision making process and the fact that its members abstain from decision-making in such cases where they were involved as reviewers, the Register Committee concluded that ASIIN’s independent decision-making is not compromised and thus found that the requirement of the standard is met. The Committee therefore concurred that the agency complies with ESG 3.3”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Focused, coordinated by ECA
Decision of	18/03/2021
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	nomination of the Board members
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“21. The review panel noted that EQ-Arts' statutes were reviewed in order to reorganise its Board and allow for the inclusion of students. Moreover, the Board and Executive Group were merged. The Governance Framework defined the composition and responsibilities of the Board, as well as the criteria for Board membership (p.34).

22. The panel reported that a call for Board members was issued in May 2020 and addressed to relevant subject-specific stakeholder organisations; on that basis, the Board members were selected.

23. The Register Committee considered that the new arrangements improved transparency and therefore concurred with the panel's conclusion that EQ-Arts complies with the standard.

24. The Committee was unable to verify whether the nomination arrangements apply only to initial nominations or also to re-appointments. In the interest of assuring a regular link with the sector, the Committee encouraged EQ-Arts to ask for nominations also for re-appointments.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	22/06/2020
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Organisational (of the accreditation committee and executive board from the founding organisation) and operational independence
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (15/03/2025)
RC decision	Non-compliance

“The panel’s findings show that, under canon law, AKAST is subject to the vigilance of the German Bishops’ Conference. The Bishops' Conference influence extends to giving consent for the admission of members of the association, the consent for the nomination of members of the Accreditation Committee, the confirmation of the Chairperson of the Accreditation Committee and Board, and the approval of each of the accreditation decision by the member of the Commission for Science and Arts (Commission VIII) of the German Bishops’ Conference. AKAST is also financed by an annual grant from the Association of German Dioceses (VDD), the legal entity for the German Bishops’ Conference. The panel explained that the German Bishop Conference member serves within the Accreditation Committee “in more moderatorial and advisory capacity” (review report p. 19) and that the elected Accreditation Committee members, permanent guests and experts involved in reviews are all requested to sign a declaration of no-conflict-of interest. The agency also added that the involvement of the German Bishops’ Conference in the decision-making process “helps ensure that there is no conflict between accreditation decisions and the subsequent ecclesiastical approval required under canon law” (self evaluation report p. 15). While the Register Committee considered it usual and acceptable for the Bishops' Conference, as the main founder and hence key stakeholder of the agency, to be involved, the Register Committee underlined that the requirement of independence should be understood to the effect that the new organisation, once it has been founded, should be able to function independently as required by the standard. The Register Committee in particular found the requirement that each accreditation decision requires the consent of the representative of the German Bishops’ Conference (member of the Accreditation Committee), in contrast with the understanding of the ESG that the responsibility for the final outcomes of the quality assurance processes remain the responsibility of the quality assurance agency. The Register Committee added that the accreditation decision by AKAST and the ecclesiastical approval required under cannon law are the purview of two different entities, and could be therefore considered independently from each other. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	18/03/2021
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Organisational and operational independence
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel noted that THEQC’s operational independence is affected by the key role played by experts and consultants, who serve as the agency's professional staff but remain employed and on the payroll of higher education institutions. The analysis of the panel showed that the current organisational structure of the agency affects the independence of its operations and formal outcomes since there is a potential for conflicts of interest to arise regarding the different roles played by the Councils’ members. The agency responded in its statement to the review report that THEQC had increased the number of permanent employees (4 new full-time employees started working for the Council in 2020). The agency also stated that its organisation structure was defined by law, but it had nevertheless conveyed the recommendation related to THEQC’s organizational structure to the relevant authorities. In its additional representation the agency added that as of January 2021, the number of THEQC employees had further increased and that the duties and responsibilities of the Council members had been reframed. While the Register Committee noticed the increase in the number of permanent staff, the Committee considered that the agency is still relying to a large extent (14 of 35 staff members) on experts and consultants that are at the same time on the payroll of higher education institutions. This could constitute a conflict of interest for obvious reasons. The Committee thus concluded that the panel’s concerns related to THEQC's operational independence have not been fully addressed”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by NASM
Decision of	02/11/2020
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	nomination and dismissal of the Board members of the organisation
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (24/10/2020)
RC decision	Compliance

“The panel noted that since its last review the MusiQuE Board now makes the final decision on its own composition. Considering the changed arrangements, the Register Committee was unclear how the members of the MusiQuE Board could be dismissed and if so on what ground. The Committee has therefore sought further clarifications from the pane. In its response, the panel explained that the absence of an external body to appoint or dismiss Board members was something specific to the legal form of a Foundation in Belgium. The panel further referred to the agency’s statutes, which provide the possible reasons/circumstances for the ending of the mandate of one board membe. The Committee noted that the panel found the current organisational arrangement to be adequate in guaranteeing the independence of the Board and its members in the context of an international quality assurance agency.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/03/2020
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Organisational independence: appointments in the majority of the agency’s made by the Galician government
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (14/02/2020)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that the president of the Governing Board of ACSUG, the director of ACSUG and the president of the CGIACA (following the nomination by the Governing Board) are all members appointed by the Galician Government. In view of the panel’s recommendation to ACSUG i.e. to set procedures in the selection of the director of the agency, president of the Governing Board and president of the CGIACA the Register Committee asked the panel to clarify whether the appointments of these bodies follow a set of criteria and if the panel has reviewed these criteria. The panel responded that it has only considered the criteria and tasks set in the Statutes of 2018, based on professional competence and prior experience, and that these criteria are intended to be used in the future appointment processes. While the Register Committee welcomed the appointment criteria based on professional competence and prior experience, the Committee underlined that the regional Galician Government nevertheless remains directly involved in the appointment of the majority of members in the agency’s governing body, in the appointment of president of the Governing Body, the president of the agency’s decision making body (CGIACA), the director of the agency and the president of the Advisory Council. The Register Committee welcomed ACSUG’s intention of appointing a representative from outside Galicia in the Governing Board and as part of CGIACA’s but noted that the current addition does not change the agencies reliance on the regional Spanish government. While the involvement of the government (as one of its stakeholders) is encouraged, the current organisational arrangements does not guarantee clear and sufficient safeguards to prevent the possible interference of the regional Galician government in ACSUG’s governance. Considering the close interlinkage between ACSUG and the Galician government, the Committee could not follow the panel’s judgment of (full) compliance, and concluded that ACSUG complies only partially with ESG 3.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	CYQAA’s link to the ministry of education
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In its analysis the panel noted that the agency’s Council members are appointed by the Council of Ministers upon recommendation from the Minister of Education and Culture (MOEC) who consults the Rectors’ Conference and relevant professional bodies (except the student member, who is appointed by POFEN).In terms of organisational arrangements, the Ministry is further involved in the recruitment process of the agency’s staff and in CYQAA’s financial services. The panel noted that “MOEC provides what the agency needs, as evidenced by a big budget increase and new staff, and the agency itself is proposing amendments on fees to the law which would further increase its income. While the panel noted that the provision of the quality assurance law and the strict rules for Council members reduces the risk of the Ministry’s interference with the agency's independence, the panel also stated that the current arrangements could be further revised, especially in reconsidering CYQAA’s organisational ties with the Ministry of Education and Culture. The Register Committee underlined the recommendations of the panel to ensure a clear separation of CYQAA from MOEC in its staff recruitment process, infrastructure and management of its own finances. In its additional representation the agency presented its proposed legislation changes and argued that this would safeguard the agency’s independence and the Council’s autonomy. Considering the proposed changes the Register Committee was not convinced that the changes in the appointment of CYQAA’s Council members would result in an increase of independence from the Ministry as, according to the proposed changes most of the Council members (eight out of eleven), are proposed (following stakeholder consultation in some cases) by the Minister. The Register Committee took note of the provision regarding the operational independence of the agency and welcomed the steps taken to increase its financial independence i.e. including a budget provisions that will allow the agency to hire additional staff, if the agency intends to do so. While the Committee noted some progress towards safeguarding the independence and autonomy of the agency, the Committee underlined the existing close interlinkage between CYQAA and MOEC and therefore concluded that the agency complies only partially with ESG 3.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Operational independece
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (15/03/2025)
RC decision	Compliance

“Considering the organisational independence, the panel’s findings show that CTI outsources its accounting and management of human resources to the Conference of Deans of French Schools of Engineering (CDEFI), an organisation that represents the engineering schools that CTI accredits. CTI also shares its premises and one staff member with CDEFI. Considering the close interlinkage between CDEFI and CTI, the Register Committee asked the panel to elaborate how the agency ensures its operational and organisational independence. Regarding the operational independence the panel responded that procedures and methods are defined by CTI’s committees on the basis of preparatory work of working groups and that third parties are not involved in this processes. The panel was convinced on the basis of the self-assessment report and the meetings with representatives of CTI and its stakeholders, that independence was guaranteed. The panel commented that the financial administration of CTI is separate from the administration of CDEFI and while CDEFI administrates the contracts and selection of personnel, that the daily management of the staff are the responsibility of CTI alone. Considering the organisational independence, the panel argued that the independence of CTI from CDEFI remains guaranteed based on a signed agreement (as of June 2015) between the two organisation. The agreement defines the tasks expected from CDEFI and CTI, the annual fee in detail and stipulates how the independence of CTI and of CDEFI remains guaranteed. The panel added that the sharing of renting facilities in the same building is considered by all parties the panel spoke with as very positive. Having considered the clarifications from the panel, the Register Committee was therefore able to follow the panel’s conclusion that CTI complies with ESG 3.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Organisational and operational independence
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that the members of NCEQE’s Authorisation and Accreditation Council are appointed by the Prime Minister upon recommendations by the Minister of Education and Science. The panel commented that the ability of the Ministry to appoint and dismiss the Councilmembers does not support organisational independence and that the agencyshould take more ownership on how council members are nominated.In its letter to EQAR (of 6 June 2019) the agency stated that NCEQE is currently working on initiating legislative changes that will allow the agency to shift the mandate in the appointment and dismissal of the NCEQE’s Director and Council members to its main Coordinating Council. The agency added that discussions are also under way to increase the role of the Coordinating Council in the selection process of the Authorization and Accreditation Council members. While the Register Committee welcomed the agency’s initiative to increase its independence from the Ministry, the Committee underlined the panel’s concerns that the new rules for the selection of Council members do not fully alleviate the concern regarding the agency’s independence as the Council itself is set up at the recommendation of the Ministry.The Register Committee underlined the panel’s recommendation that the agency should be ensured that there is a structural independence from the government and that the agency should take ownership of how council members are appointed under the new rules. While considering that the failure to fully meet the requirement of the standard concern both the organisational and operational independence, the Register Committee nevertheless noted the agency has put forward legislative changes that would increase its independence, and therefore could follow the panel conclusion that NCEQE complies partially with ESG 3.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Organisational independence: appointment of the director by the mother organisation, support in terms of pyscial infrastructure, including human and financial ressources
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“While IEP’s Steering Committee has full responsibility for the development of strategies and policies, the Register Committee noted that the Steering Committee ensure the strategic development of the IEP in the context of EUA’s development priorities. Moreover, EUA provides the overall support, including physical infrastructure and financial management through separate accounts; both entities have a shared staff and EUA appoints the Director of the IEP Secretariat. Despite the panel’s view that no benefits would come from legally separating the two entities, the Register Committee considered that IEP continues to be part of EUA and, as such, its organisational independence continues to be constrained by the close link and dependency in both legal and practical terms, even if less so than at the time of the previous review. The Committee concurred with the panel's analysis that IEP operates and undertakes its evaluations independently and that the Steering Committee has full responsibilities for the operations of IEP and its evaluation results. The Committee thus considered that the constrained organisational independence bears a residual risk of a perceived lack of independence, elements of which should be closely considered in IEP’s next renewal of inclusion.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Independence of formal outcomes/link to the ministry
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its previous application, the Register Committee expressed concerns with regards to the possibility of the Austrian Ministry to dismiss a decision of accreditation by the agency and has therefore flagged AQ Austria’s independence of formal outcomes. In considering this matter the panel stated in its review report (2019) that the legal framework stipulates the independence of the Board of AQ Austria. While the responsible Minister can withheld the decision of the Board, this can be done only in case of unlawful acts and with “overarching political deliberations”. The Register Committee concluded that a change in accreditation of decisions can only happen in exceptional situations and therefore concluded that the flag has been satisfactorily addressed.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ECA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	nomination of the Board members; limited track record
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (19/11/2018)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“38. The review panel found appropriate that "Potential Board members are identified / appointed by the Board not by public competition but [...] through informed ‘networking’".

39. Especially considering that there are no rules as to the Board’s composition otherwise (i.e. profiles or backgrounds of members to be appointed), the Register Committee considered that such an approach did not ensure sufficient transparency and did not provide a safeguard against one-sided third-party influence.

40. In its representation, EQ-Arts referred to the “skills audit” of its Board members and various documents that codify its independent status and that of its Board members. It further described how potential candidates are identified and appointed.

41. The Register Committee noted that EQ-Arts relies on the Board effectively recruiting its own successors, but without a public call. The Committee saw a risk in the fact that, due to the absence of any nominations by other bodies or a public competition, potentially suitable candidates cannot propose themselves unless contacted.

42. Bearing in mind the guideline to standard 3.1, i.e. “to ensure the meaningfulness of external quality assurance, it is important that institutions and the public trust agencies”, the Register Committee considers that the requirement of independence also implies a need for transparency and accountability.

43. The Register Committee underlined that most agencies ensure independence, transparency and accountability by receiving nominations to their Boards from different stakeholders. Such nomination rights exercised by different bodies constitute certain checks and balances, and prevent one single interest group from gaining full control.

44. The Register Committee considered that the absence of a nominations system paired with the informal approach to recruiting candidates did not ensure sufficient transparency and accountability to the agency’s sector.

46. The Register Committee had considered that, due to the small number of reviews carried out so far, the independence of EQ-Arts’ outcomes could only be demonstrated to some extent.

47. In its representation EQ-Arts reiterated its view that the number of reports should be considered sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the standards. The Register Committee accepted the argument considering the previous experience under the auspices of ELIA and the number of critical friend reviews that EQ-Arts carried out in addition to the formal assessments reviews; it considered that these indeed were sufficient to judge the independence of outcomes.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Operational independence
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (15/03/2019)
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee obtained clarification from the panel concerning the remarks in the review report that the independence of the agency was not always fully understood by the Slovenian authorities, that “the Ministry might have interfered with the agency's work" and that “the private HEIs mentioned some cases of inconsistency and partiality” in SQAA's decisions. The Register Committee understood that the type of interference that had occurred (i.e. refusal to enter two accreditation decisions into the register maintained by the government) was now ruled out following changed responsibilities, with the register being under SQAA's control, thus strengthening the agency's independence. The Committee further noted that the panel found that the accusations by some private HEIs were not substantiated.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Organisational independence: selection and dismissal of the agency’s board members
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (20/11/2018)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee learned from HAC’s self-evaluation report and the review panel’s analysis that the President of HAC’s Board is chosen from among the Board members by the Minister in agreement with the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. The Committee also noted that nine of the 20 HAC Board members are nominated by the Ministry of Human Resources and that the Minister has the authority to recall members of the HAC Board. [...] The panel stated that it is not aware of a published set of criteria for the selection and appointment of Board members and that it was assured by the ministry that a priority is put on nominating experienced and senior academics to the Board. The panel further added that possible reasons for the dismissal of the members of the HAC Board might be for inappropriate, unprofessional or illegal behaviour, although a specific list of admissible reasons did not exist. The agency further argued that the legality of HAC’s activities is overseen by the minister (Art 71/a) and thus the only case where the government may interfere in the agency’s operations are in cases where the law is breached. Dismissal of Board members is, according to the agency, also based on legal grounds, as legislation requires that the Minister state its reasons for such an action. The agency also admits that while the legal framework may seem to leave open the challenge to its (organisational) independence this has not been the case in practice.[…] The Committee noted that the agency’s explanations did not change the fact that there is a lack of clear safeguards to prevent possible (even if unlikely based on experience to date) interference in the activity of the agency or in the dismissal of its Board members. The Register Committee underlined the importance of ensuring not just a balanced representation in the nominated delegates to the Board but also of formal mechanisms and regulations to safeguard its organisational independence.. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	06/12/2018
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Organisation and operational independence (lack of evidence due to change in legal framework)
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee had flagged the independence of NEAQA’s predecessor and the relationship between the agency and NCHE, in particular with regard to NCHE's double role of appointing members and being involved in the development of procedures and criteria as well as serving as the appeals body. The panel had also noted that CAQA was expected to become fully independent in terms of organisational and financial arrangements when incorporated into the new QA body, NEAQA, pursuant to the changed Law on Higher Education (LoHE) (review report, p. 19).The Committee nevertheless considered that the new organisational and financial arrangements still have to be fully implemented, and would need to be verified by an external panel.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/11/2017
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	organisational independence (overlap in the composition of the agency’s different bodies)
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee flagged for attention the independence of AQU from both government and higher education institutions. The panel found that the new legal framework (AQU Catalunya Bill adopted in 2015) has increased the agency's independence, whereby the government is no longer directly involved in the appointment of senior staff members in the agency.In its statement to the review report, the agency explained that the representation of higher education institutions was in line with existing legislation and that the role of the Governing Board is separated from the committees dealing with evaluation results. The agency further emphasised that the current composition does not allow for a partisan decision to be made by any stakeholder group and argued that the panel's concerns were based on conjecture and not evidence.The Register Committee noted the review panel’s concerns with regard to the lack of a clear separation between the composition of subject-specific committees and review panels that implement and monitor the procedures, which might create unwanted and unintended interference between the different roles. AQU stressed in its statement to the review report that this practice in fact ensures greater consistency in the application of the review criteria and since the decisions are made collectively the agency considers there is no undue influence.The Register Committee noted the agency’s clarifications. While it found that the flag on the independence of the Governing Board was largely addressed, the Committee underlined the concerns of the panel with regard to the overlap in the composition of the agency’s different bodies.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	organisational independence
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its analysis, the panel discussed that the processes for the appointment of the Director and members of the Evaluation Council may be seen as political and as a potential risk in terms of FINEEC’s organisational independence. The panel thus emphasised the need for transparent procedures with clear and predetermined criteria. The Register Committee sought clarification from the panel as to how it satisfied itself that there was no undue influence in the nomination process given the current absence of a formal procedure and criteria. In its response letter, the panel stated that the need for the procedure to be transparent was brought up to underline the need to guarantee the independence of the agency and not to indicate that there was not a formal procedure in place or that it was not transparent. The panel clarified that in case of the Director, the appointment follows the procedure for the recruitment of civil servants in Finland, while in case of appointing the members of the Evaluation Council, the members are chosen from the proposals made by different stakeholder groups (from the educational sector, teacher education, research, working life and students). The Register Committee was able to verify that the documentation related to both procedure is published.In the review report the panel stated that FINEEC might in the future merge with the National Board of Education and the Centre for International Mobility (CIMO). The panel noted that this merger might affect the independence of evaluation activities as the tasks of the Board of Education are closely related to the political work of the Ministry of Education and Culture.

The Register Committee underlined that FINEEC is expected to submit a Substantive Change Report should its organisational status change in the future.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Operational independence/limited ability in defining its own rules of procedure and criteria
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its decision of inclusion of 18/11/2010 the Register Committee noted that “the Ministry defines in detail the criteria applied by the Accreditation Institution” and that the “independence-related impact of this situation in the long term should receive particular attention”. The panel commented that even though the minister lays down the rules of procedure for both institutional and programme accreditation, the level of detail and number of criteria has improved allowing AI to further elaborate on its own criteria.The panel stated that the Executive Director of AI is appointed by the minister following the recommendation of the Accreditation Council. The panel’s view is that this is an appropriate solution since AI does not have any governing board or other bodies to fulfil this function.The outcomes of AI’s quality assurance processes are the responsibility of the Accreditation Council. The panel noted that the members of the Accreditation Council are appointed by the minister of Higher Education on the basis of recommendations from relevant organisation. The minister also appoints the Executive Director of AI on the recommendation of the Accreditation Council. The review panel considered that similarly to AI, the Accreditation Council is not subject to the power of instruction from the Minister of Higher Education concerning accreditation and therefore the minister cannot affect or reverse any of the Councils accreditation decisions. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by NASM
Decision of	06/06/2016
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Organisational and operational independence
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (15/03/2025)
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee considered it usual and acceptable for one existing organisation, in this case AEC, to be the main initiator and (co-)founder of a new agency. The Register Committee, however, underlined that the requirement of independence should be understood to the effect that the new organisation, once it has been founded, should be able to function and develop independently, as required by the standard.The External Review Report did not specifically address the implications of the proposals for Board members (by AEC, EMU and Pearle*) being binding, whether MusiQuE Board members serve in an individual capacity, and the guaranteed majority of AEC nominees on the MusiQuE Board.In its clarification (Annex 7), the Review Panel considered that the binding nature of nominations to the MusiQuE Board was balanced by the fact that nominees had to be listed on MusiQuE’s register of peer reviewers, which was entirely under the control of MusiQuE and its Board.The Panel had further satisfied itself that MusiQuE Board members serve in an individual capacity and that their strategic thinking and orientation was independent, dedicated to the mission and values of MusiQuE. The Panel noted that it did not detect any allegiance of Board members to the nominating organisations.The Review Panel explained that it had considered the majority of AEC nominees a strength, given that they were typically leaders of study programmes in music, had the strongest expertise in relation to quality assurance and thus MusiQuE’s work. Notwithstanding the strong expertise brought by AEC nominees to the MusiQuE Board, the Register Committee considered that their structural majority might nevertheless affect MusiQuE’s independence. The matter would thus have deserved specific attention in the External Review Report, including a more elaborate explanation how the Panel considered that MusiQuE’s independence is safeguarded despite the decisive influence of one single organisation on the membership of its governing body.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Lack of experts from the field; organisational and operational independence
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“Due to the small chiropractic community, the review team noted that experts from the field may lack independence. While this issue was highlighted in ECCE’s previous external review, the panel noted that the situation remained unchanged. The panel further stated that the move of experts and committee members within ECCE’s different organisational structures (panel experts, the Commission on Accreditation, Quality Assurance Committee, Executive) may pose questions to the effective independence of the agency. In its additional representation the agency stated that two additional experts from outside the chiropractic field were nominated and that the position of ‘Evaluation Team Secretary’ was replaced with newly appointed panel members. The agency also added that a list of conditions was prepared to be integrated as part of its conflict of interest statement. The Register Committee acknowledged the intention of ECCE to eliminate possible conflict of interest within its accreditation procedures and to improve its organisational and operational independence. Based on the evidence provided, the Committee could not yet verify that ECCE has addressed the earlier mentioned concerns (no clear explanation of conflict of interest for members of CoA, QAC or the Executive) and the nomination of two non-chiropractic experts is not yet enacted, since it has to be voted on at the General Meeting of ECCE in November.”

Full decision: see agency register entry