Precedents database

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	difference in reports regarding recommendations and level of compliance/Inconsistencies between the provisions for programme accreditation and institutional accreditation,
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel noted some inconsistencies between the provisions for programme accreditation and institutional accreditation, i.e. the IQAA Accreditation Council can only modify the points awarded for decisions in case of programme accreditation but not for institutional accreditation. The panel further noted that it is not always clear how the number and weight of recommendations is linked to the compliance levels of each standard i.e. some reports may include recommendations or critical comments, while other reports do not although in both cases the standard is considered ‘fully compliant’. The panel considered this was a result of the fact that the guidelines for experts are not sufficiently precise. The panel recommended a revision of the agency’s decision-making algorithm, in particular a clarification of the minimum requirements to be fulfilled by higher education institutions and the acceptable shortcomings for each of the four levels of compliance within IQAA’s accreditation standards.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	consistency in decision making across different technical committees.
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In the previous renewal of ACQUIN’s registration, EQAR had flagged for attention “ whether measures have been taken to enhance consistency in decision-making across different technical committees”. The panel reported that it had discussed the consistency of evaluations and decisions by ACQUIN in detail during the site visit. The panel established that no structural change had been implemented to improve the situation since the last review. While the report refers to one formal meeting between the chairs of the standing committees in 2014, such meetings do not seem to be institutionalised and regular. Given the assessment by the panel, the Register Committee concluded that the flag was not resolved”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	consistency and clarity of the criteria
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel’s analysis showed that the agency’s criteria are unclear with regard to the period of institutional accreditation. The accreditation is given for a period of up to five years, but there is no specification in which cases the accreditation period will be shorter than five years. In its clarification to the additional representation (letter of 02/05/2017) ECCE stated that it had developed a “Compliance Table” and a list of the critical standards to assist panels as well as institutions to understand the expectation of each standard. ECCE expects to formally adopt this practice at their general meeting in November

2017. While the Register Committee acknowledge ECCE’s plans of a new set of criteria to ensure consistency and clarity in the application of criteria, the Committee noted that the agency has neither published the ‘Compliance Table’ nor formalised this practice.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/03/2023
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	deviation from the outcome of a panel’s report
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (10/02/2023)
RC decision	Compliance

“15. The Register Committee noted that NVAO-NL may modify a recommendation for a positive outcome in a panel report, although it has never so far questioned this. The Committee was unclear on the situations that may lead to a deviation from the outcome of a panel’s report and whether such deviations are documented.

16. In its clarification response (of 10/02/2023) the review panel explained that NVAO-NL may occasionally seek additional information from panels and in a limited number of cases, and after due deliberation may expand conditions or deviate in a minor sense from the panel’s advice. Such changes may be done by NVAO-NL to reduce the subjectivity of reports and ensure the consistency of recommendations as well as of the final outcome. Deviations from the final recommendation of the panel have not happened yet, but according to the agency’s procedure these changes are documented in the final published decision by NVAO-NL.

17. Having considered the clarification provided, the Register Committee can now follow the panel’s conclusion of compliance with the standard 2.5.”

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	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/10/2023
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	Inconsistent application of criteria
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (18/07/2023)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The current set up brings confusion not only for the higher education institutions, but also for the

agency itself. The Committee found that agency’s criteria are not always applied consistently in the reviews and this leads to different standards being covered in the reports. During the clarification call, the agency explained that the SOP 2023 will be stabile - only reviewed and amended after 3 years again. The Committee welcomed these changes but found that the agency still enables usage of different SOPs – a practice that can lead to different outcomes and inconsistencies in the conclusions of its reports. This is especially problematic considering the regulatory function of the agency’s reviews for veterinary education.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/11/2024
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	Inconsistent use of tools for decision making; Consistency in the interpretation of the agency’s criteria
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (28/05/2024)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee learned that, out of 24 applications concluded between

2022 and 2024, the final conclusions on the standards differed from those

proposed by the panels in four cases – three of which occurred in

2024. This

trend resulted in either more or less favourable outcomes for the concerned

higher education institutions.The Committee could not understand, without a panel insight, whether

the increased discrepancy between the panels’ and the Authorisation

Council’s conclusions occurring after the site visit (2023-11-05) steams from

the (im)proper use of the tools for consistent application of agency’s criteria

or other external factors (see more in ESG 3.3)”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/10/2024
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	inconsistency in outcomes
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“32. MFHEA has established a National Quality Assurance Framework (NQAF), which sets the parameters for external quality assurance in Malta. The Register Committee learned that at the time of the review, only the standards for the EQA Audit procedures mirrored the NQAF standards and that only for that procedure the criteria were clearly defined and ensure a consistent judgement of each standard.

33. The panel noted several inconsistencies regarding the rest of the MFHEA’s activities. For example, the NQAF standards for programme accreditation were not clearly referred to in the internal application form. Similar challenges were noted in the report for awarding university status to a provider; the report did not follow the application form where the NQAF standards were referred to.

34. Furthermore, the panel could not find further evidence that the agency had a clear approach which standards and procedure manuals are applied in its activities. The panel could not find consistency in the agency’s guidelines, standards and manuals. The panel was also unable to find guiding criteria for outcomes in order to ensure a consistent judgement for all types of providers and programme accreditation.

35. In its statement to the report, MFHEA informed that it addressed some of the panel’s recommendations in its revision of the Accreditation Manual for Higher Education Institutions; for the Committee, though, it was unclear what particular changes took place to address the shortcomings. The agency also explained that they will further address the shortcomings in the new

Programme Accreditation Manual in January 2025.

36. The Committee could follow the panel’s view and found that the agency did not have clear criteria for outcomes and that there is lack of consistency in their implementation for most of its procedures, as well as the lack of systemic approach to ensuring consistency in its decision making.

37. In its additional representation, MFHEA informed that the concerns raised by the Register Committee have been or will be addressed with the respective manuals for provider and programme accreditation procedures. Furthermore, MFHEA informed that at the given time, they are designing the guidelines for the Quality Assurance Committee and its peer reviewers to refine its criteria for outcomes.

38. The Register Committee noted the steps taken by MFHEA to formulate its criteria for outcomes for programme and provider accreditation procedures in a clear manner in its new manuals. The Register Committee, however, found it challenging to assess the practical implementation without a panel insight. The Committee also found that the new programme evaluation manual is yet to be adopted and implemented in practice. Following this, the Committee thus concurred with the panel’s conclusion that MFHEA complies partially with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2024
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	Lack of clear deliberation rules
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“7. In its last decision for renewal of registration (of 2019-11-05), the Register Committee found that CTI only partially fulfilled the requirements of the standard as the consistency in their decision making was not always assured - the Committee noted a lack of clear deliberation rules detailing the basis upon which specific decisions were made.

8. The Register Committee noted that CTI has introduced a new tool for ensuring consistency in its decision making – a deliberation table, used for synthesizing the panel assessments. Furthermore, the Committee understood from the analysis of the panel that the deliberation tables ensure consistency in the decision making process and make the review process more transparent.

9. Following the recent developments regarding the introduction of the new tool and its impact on consistency of the outcomes of CTI, the Register Committee was able to concur with the panel's conclusion, and found that now the agency complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	25/10/2022
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Publication of reports
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee learned that IQAA now publishes in full the decisions from institutional and programme accreditations, including the

negative ones. Even though the bulk of reports is public, this is not the case for all of them - the reports from the initial accreditation and the post-accreditation monitoring are still not published.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	07/02/2022
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	publication of all reports
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“14. In its last decision, the Register Committee noted that a number of programme accreditation reports have not been published by FIBAA and concluded that the agency at that time complied only partially with ESG 2.6. In response to the recommendation made in the previous review, the Register Committee learned that FIBAA is now publishing both the positive and negative reports on accreditation and certification processes from national as well as international activities, on its website.

15. The Register Committee therefore agreed with the panel’s conclusion, that FIBAA complies with standard 2.6.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/12/2021
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Consistency in the content and publication of the reports
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The agency publishes its reports on the website. The panel noted that, however, the structure of the reports and their publishing was not always consistent and that for some procedures the reports included summary information only. In their response to the review report, the agency explained that it now uses a template provided by GAC which enables a better structured and

standardised reporting. The agency is currently updating its database and

tackling the technical issues leading to an inconsistent report publishing. The Register Committee found that the agency has taken concrete

steps to address the issues related to the consistent drafting and publishing of its reports”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	14/03/2022
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	responsibility to publish reports also when not submitted to GAC
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“23. The Register Committee concurred with the panel's conclusion that ZEvA complies with the standard; the Committee further underlined that ZEvA is responsible to ensure that all reports are ultimately published on its own website and on DEQAR, including those that are never submitted to GAC by the institution under review.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	22/06/2020
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	publication of negative reports
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (25/04/2025)
RC decision	Compliance

“While ACSUCYL publishes the results of its external evaluations, the Register Committee was unclear on whether the agency also makes public the assessment reports with a negative result. The Register Committee therefore sought further clarification from the panel. In its clarification response, the panel stated that according to ACSUCYL’s handbook, the assessment reports are published once the University Council, the body responsible for taking the formal decision concerning verification and modification of curricula takes its decision. The panel added that it does not have any indication to show that negative reports of this activity are not published (in case a decision is taken).”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	22/06/2020
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Publication of all reports
Panel conclusion	Non-compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In its previous decision of inclusion, the Register Committee flagged AKKORK’s practice of ensuring the consistent publication of all external evaluation reports. In its additional information and additional representation to the review report the agency claimed that all its review reports and decisions were now published on its website, including the reports from its professional-public accreditation activity. The Register Committee could verify that with a few exceptions all of these reports are now published by the agency on its website i.e. links included under the Russian version of its agency’s website under Register of programmes. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Publication of negative reports
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“When evalag’s registration was last renewed it was flagged for attention whether evalag has moved to publish reports where the accreditation decision was negative. The review panel observed that evalag has had no negative decisions so far. The panel nevertheless confirmed that evalag’s clear policy is to publish all reports regardless of the outcome; the panel had no doubts that a negative report will be published. The Register Committee therefore concluded that the flag has been addressed.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	readability and accessibility of reports
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In the previous decision for inclusion, the Register Committee flagged for attention the readability and accessibility of reports. Based on the review report the Register Committee noted that the agency has made good efforts to address the issue.The Register Committee therefore considered that the flag has been addressed and concurred with the panel’s conclusion that A3ES complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/03/2020
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	not all reports published in the past
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“31. When AHPGS' registration was last renewed, the Register Committee flagged for attention whether AHPGS’ policy of publishing full reports for all reviews has been implemented consistently.

32. The review report analysed and concluded that AHPGS has consistently published full reports from all of its activities. The Register Committee therefore considered that the flag has been addressed and concurred with the conclusion that AHPGS complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	publication of negative reports
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“Review panel further noted that reports from initial accreditation procedures with a negative outcome are not published and rightly stated that the publication of all reports is required by the ESG, in order to ensure full transparency. While SQAA's statement on the report held that all “reports (with the positive and negative outcomes)” were now accessible, it was not clear whether SQAA officially changed its policy to that effect. The Committee was unable to verify whether reports on initial accreditation procedures with a negative outcome were now published.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/06/2018
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Publication of full reports
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (30/05/2018)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The review panel noted that the expert groups' (EG) reports were “reflected” in the standing committee (SC) reports, but were not published as such. The panel clarified that the practice reflected NEAA's “division of labour”, that there was no substantial difference between the EG and SC reports, and that the SC was not able to include in its report “other findings than those of the EG”. […]In its statement on the review report, NEAA noted that it was now publishing the full EG reports. This could, however, not be verified by the Register Committee as the reports are only available on the Bulgarian version of NEAA's website.”

Full decision: see agency register entry