Precedents database

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	15/03/2019
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	publication of reports and publication of the experts involved
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The publication of review reports regarding Degree-Awarding Powers (DAP) was flagged for attention when QAA was admitted to the Register. The Register Committee welcomed that regulations were changed to the effect that such reports are now published [...] the Register Committee noted that the composition of the panels for TNE review is not mentioned in the published report. The Committee therefore drew attention to the guidelines to ESG 2.6, which suggest that the members of the review panel should be listed in the review report.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/11/2017
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Publication of reports
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its decision of inclusion, the Register Committee flagged the publication of reports corresponding to applications by new programmes and new licensing requests. The panel’s finding show that the evaluation reports for programme and institutional evaluations are published and accessible on the SKVC website, including the accreditation decisions (p. 40).”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Inconsistency in preparation of reports; publication of programme accreditation reports
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel noted that the practice of sending review reports to higher education institutions for approval after decisions have been made should be reconsidered as this is not standard practice. To ensure consistency in the preparation of reports, the panel underlined the need for clearer manuals. The panel also referred to the results of an analysis carried out by the Accreditation Council, which showed that a number of programme accreditation reports have not been published by FIBAA. The Register Committee noted the intention of FIBAA to improve its practice of publishing reports and considered that improvements have not yet been externally reviewed.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	readibility and usefulness of reports
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its decision of inclusion the Register Committee flagged the readability and usefulness of accreditation reports for students and general audiences.The review panel noted that the agency still needs to improve the readability of reports and while the structure and format of AI reports are in general clear and concise they mostly serve the purpose of the accreditation decision.While the agency is compliant in terms of accessibility and publication of reports, the Register Committee noted that the readability of reports is limited to a specialised audience. ”

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 reports
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“Having been able to verify the publication of reports for certification and audit procedures the Register Committee was however unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion of partial compliance and concluded that ZEvA is in fact compliant with ESG 2.6.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/10/2023
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Publication of reports
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“At the time of the site visit the

agency’s website was under development, and the access to all reports was

not possible. The Committee noted that the website was still not upgraded

and fully functional at the time of taking the decision - almost one year after

the panel’s visit. This circumstance prevented the Committee from verifying

whether all the reports are publicly available. The Committee

concurred with panel’s conclusion of partial compliance.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2024
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Publication of negative reports and decisions
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“13. The Register Committee learned from the analysis by the panel that A3ES does not publish negative reports and decisions on the assessment of new study programmes (NCE).

14. Given the lack of transparency by not publishing negative reports and decisions for all procedures the Register Committee concurred with the panel that A3ES only partially complies with ESG 2.6.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2024
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Publication of reports
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“8. From the report, the Register Committee learned that in case of the activities leading to an accreditation of German higher education institutions, there is a (theoretical) possibility that an institution may not forward the report to the German Accreditation Council (GAC); hence the report may not be published.

9. The Register Committee concurred with panel’s conclusion and found the agency compliant with the standard. It, however, underlined panel’s recommendation that the agency could include a publishing clause in the contract with the higher education institution in case the report to the German Accreditation Council is not forwarded.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	14/03/2025
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Publication of all reports
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“20. The Register Committee learned from the panel analysis that the agency publishes full reports in only three out of its nine external quality assurance activities.

21. In its additional representation, ANVUR demonstrated that all reports are now published on ANVUR’s website. In addition, the agency explained that the accreditation protocols foresee a higher level of standardisation of reports which will in turn ensure that reports will continue to be published in full.

22. The Register Committee welcomed the steps taken by the agency and found that the agency now publishes all of its reports. Following this, the Register Committee could not follow panel’s conclusion and found ANVUR compliant with ESG 2.6.”

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	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2021
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Publication of reports depends on the agreement with the HEIs; Lack of publication of negative reports
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel pointed out that publication of AAQ’s reports is subjected to contract between the agency and the university. Such arrangements

primarily derive from the legal framework in Switzerland, which does not prescribe obligatory publication of reports. In practice, the agency has so far published all reports that led to a positive decision. The Register Committee learned that the agency has not published any

negative decisions on its website. In addition, the panel noted that on systemic level, there was no intention for discussing this matter further, and publishing of the reports with a negative outcome was not on the political agenda of the stakeholders.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

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

“As not all reports were published on the agency’s website, the Register Committee was unclear whether the agency publishes all its review reports, including those with a negative result. The panel explained that while AKAST has not published reports right from the beginning of its activities, that the agency has been making available the review reports following the implementation of the new legal framework in Germany. As GAC has assumed the task of keeping a central register for all accreditation records, all the reports by AKAST will be made available in its register (including negative and older accreditations). The panel further added that at the time of the review, AKAST had not taken any negative accreditation decisions, and if it were to do so in the future, AKAST would have to publish it.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	18/03/2021
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	delay in the publication of reports, inconsistency in the content of reports
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (09/10/2020)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“THEQC stated that it had completed only one Institutional Accreditation Program (IAP) by the end of 2020 and that the agency would begin to publish IAP reports by February

2021. As of March 2021, the Register Committee could not verify the publication of any Institutional Accreditation Program report, in particular not the report from the procedure finalised in

2020. Considering the consistency of institutional external evaluation reports (ISER and IFR) the panel formed the view that this was not systematically ensured. While the agency has taken in the recommendation of the panel to include the maturity level grades as part of these reports (see also under ESG 2.5), the Committee underlined the panel’s recommendation on the need to also introduce mechanisms to ensure consistency not only for the structure of the reports but also of the depth the reports provide. In its additional representation the agency stated that an analysis was performed on its rubric assessment approach, but that the analysis was not finalised in time for its site-visit. THEQC added that a consistency and usefulness analysis was also carried out with different stakeholders on its rubric reporting approach. The Committee welcomed the analyses carried out by the agency, but considered that the panel’s concerns have not been addressed since the analyses did not address the content of the reports. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	22/06/2020
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Lack of public reports for evaluations of new institutions (authorisation)
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (25/04/2025)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel noted that the assessment of institutions' programmes development plans is “a procedure to authorise their operation” (under ESG 2.3) and that the resulting reports "'are all issued on demand from universities and are not published' because programmes have not started yet” (under ESG 2.6).

The standard requires that all reports be published for all external quality assurance activities. Based on the information in the report the Register Committee understood that the assessment of institutions' programmes development plans is part of an authorisation process in which institutions are assessed against preset criteria, and thus should be considered a quality assurance process. Unlike for consultancy services or similar, which would be outside the scope of the ESG, the Register Committee therefore considered that the standard applies here.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/11/2020
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Quality of reporting
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“Considering the quality of reports, the Committee considered the panel’s assessments that BAC’s reports “still fail to completely meet the expectations of this standard as they are not yet ‘full’ reports” (Review report p. 40)

24. The panel further pointed out that the reports provide limited qualitative insight and there was no evidence of how the Accreditation Committee was able to consider the effectiveness of a higher education institution’s internal quality assurance process. In its additional representation BAC stated that it is in the process of addressing the shortcomings of its reporting format and that it is committed to publishing the negative outcomes of its reviews While the Register Committee acknowledged agency’s progress towards more qualitative reportin,, the Committee noted that a full redraft of BAC’s reporting template is only expected to be completed in the following years”

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	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that AAC-DEVA publishes the full reports of its external reviews, except those with a negative result of its (ex-ante) verification programme. While the review panel found the agency’s explanations – that it is not necessary to publish information about study programmes that are not going to be offered – reasonable, the Register Committee underlined that it can be of interest for the public to know which concepts were denied accreditation and why. In particular, such information is important if the institutions applies for accreditation of the same programme with another quality assurance agency, which needs to be able to find out that it was earlier denied accreditation by AAC-DEVA. In its additional representation the agency stated that it is committed to transparency, but that the publication of the ex ante reports would create confusion among students and might create prejudice against the concerned university. AAC-DEVA added that that the current legal framework in Spain does not allow ex-ante accreditation to be carried out by a different QA agency and that the universities are required to wait at least two years before resubmitting the programme for the ex-ante verification. The Committee however could not follow the agency’s reasoning for not publishing reports where the agency takes a negative decision since such reports have been published in the past by registered agencies (in other regions of Spain and elsewhere), without the risk of confusion. The reputation of a higher education institutions should not be affected by an ex-ante negative report more than the publication of any other report with a negative outcome. The Register Committee added that the higher education institution could always have the option to withdraw the proposal of a study programme before a decision by AAC-DEVA is taken, so as to avoid any public decision from being taken. The Register Committee underlined that the standard requirement is clear, and does not include exceptions in regards to the publication of reports for any form of finalised external QA procedure. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/03/2020
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Publication of full reports for one procedure
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (14/02/2020)
RC decision	Compliance

“In its previous decision, the Register Committee flagged ACSUG’s publication of full reports of the FIDES-AUDIT reviews. According to the analysis of the review panel, all completed reports by ACSUG are published. The Register Committee could further verify that the results of the FIDES-AUDIT review are made available on the agency’s web page. The review panel’s analysis also revealed that the reports resulting from the ex-ante accreditation (validation) assessment are not published by ACSUG, as deferred applications for initial accreditation are usually withdrawn by the higher education institution before a final decision is taken. The Register Committee has therefore asked the review panel to clarify whether ACSUG has ever reached a final decision of rejection in an ex-ante accreditation assessment and whether in such a scenario, ACSUG would publish its report with a negative decision? In its response letter, the panel clarified that ACSUG has not reached a final decision of rejection in an ex-ante accreditation (validation) assessment at that time. The panel added that it has no reason to doubt that ACSUG would publish its ex-ante reports with a negative decision, in case that such reports were completed. Having considered the clarification by the panel, and the reassurance that ACSUG would publish any negative reports resulting from its ex-ante accreditation, the Register Committee could follow the conclusion of the panel that ACSUG complies with ESG 2.6”

Full decision: see agency register entry

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

“At the time of the review not all evaluation reports carried out by CYQAA were available on the agency’s website. In its statement to thereview report the agency explained that it has begun to upload the missing reports. The Register Committee confirmed at the time of its first consideration of CYQAA’s application (June 2019) that most reports have been published (including reports with a negative outcome), however the Register Committee observed that a number of reports were nevertheless still missing.The Register Committee further noted that the decision taken on cross-border higher education provisions are not published by CYQAA, as the agency only provides an explanatory note related to the outcome of these reviews. While the panel found this practice satisfactory, the Committee could not follow the reasoning of the panel and underlined that the standard requirements specify that any formal decision based on the reports, should be published together with the report.The analysis of the panel further showed that the quality of reports varies in terms of evidence provided, depth of analysis and consistency and that expert panels have a very short schedule to write evaluation reports.In its additional representation CYQAA stated that, as it has previously committed to publishing all reports, that the agency has proceeded in doing so. The agency has further provided direct links to the different sections of its website where the reports of accredited institutions, programmes, joint programmes, franchised programmes are published, including the accreditations resulting ina negative decision. The CYQAA added that it has also published the official decisions and reports for all the inbound ‘franchised programmes’ reviewed by theagency. The Register Committee took note of the explanation concerning the time allocated to drafting of the report and welcomed the agency’s development of a more detailed guideline to support the consistencyand quality of reports (according to CYQAA additional representation and statement to the review report). As the Committee could verify the link for all published reports and decisions by CYQAA, including the evaluation outcomes of cross-border higher education provision of ‘franchised programmes’, the Register Committee concluded that CYQAA now complies with the ESG 2.6.”

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 full reports
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In its previous decision the Register Committee flagged CTI’s practice ofnot publishing in full its review reports and not publishing its accreditation decisions. The panel’s analysis show that the agency’s practice it is to still publish summary evaluation reports. While the summary includes the decision, the main findings and recommendations of the review, the agency does not publish the full detailed evaluation results, called “minutes”. CTI argued thatit be difficult to ensure the consistency in the style and length of the differentpanel reports if it were to publish it in full, and that it would prove to be less valuable to its intended readership, including the reviewed higher education institutions which appreciate concise reports. In view of the panel’s recommendations of publishing the full accreditation reports, the agency stated that it has taken the decision that within the 2019-2020 external review campaign to make available the full reports for those higher education institutions that agree to having their report published (on a voluntary basis). CTI added that starting with its 2020-2021 external review campaign, that the agency is committed to publishing in full from that point all its review reports. The Register Committee acknowledged the actions taken by the agency towards the full publication of its reports, but stressed that the flag has not been addressed. As the agency does not currently meet the requirements of the standard (to publish full reports) at the Register Committee agrees with the panel’s conclusions that CTI complies only partially with ESG 2.6.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Publication of reports for opinion-giving process
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (21/05/2019)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In the previous decision of renewal the Register Committee flagged for attention PKA’s publication of reports of its ex-ante evaluations. The panel’s findings show that while the reports for programme accreditation and resolutions are published the reports and resolutions of the opinion-giving process are however not published online.PKA explained in its statement to the review report that all reports have been published since October

2018. The Register Committee noted that according to the information published by PKA on its website some of the reports of its opinion-giving process are not published and has therefore asked the agency to clarify the delay and timeline of their expected publication.In its clarification letter, the agency explained that the publication of resolutions before 2018 are delayed due to the changes in the legal framework and due to the requirements of the European Unions’ General Data Protection Regulation adopted in

2018. This required changes in PKA’s internal reporting templates and procedures.PKA added that legal grounds for publishing opinion-giving resolutions and reviews was established with its Statute as approved in 2018, but explained that this regulation does not apply retroactively.Having considered the additional clarifications given by the agency, the Register Committee noted that PKA would, however, be able to publish already prepared reports from 2016 and

2017. As this issue was already flagged in PKA’s last application, the Register Committee therefore concurred with the review panel’s conclusion that PKA complies only partially with the standard, pending the publication of the remaining reports.”

Full decision: see agency register entry