Precedents database
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – MFHEA – Partial compliance (2024) student in governance, distintion between activities
MFHEA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 11/10/2024 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords student in governance, distintion between activities Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “44. MFHEA has a mission statement which is publicly available and included in the strategic plan. As outlined by the panel, however, the strategic plan lacks a detailed outline of clear and explicit goals.
45. The Committee learned from the panel’s analysis that MFHEA did not ensure a clear distinction between its external quality assurance activities in the field of higher education and its other fields of work. In its statement on the report, the agency explained in order to enable a clear distinction
between its activities, it plans to initiate legislative changes. These changes, however, were either planned to happen later in 2024 or in 2025.
46. The Register Committee also learned from the report that MFHEA involves external stakeholders from different sectors in its governance and
work, e.g., members of the Board have different backgrounds in higher education. The Committee, however, noted that students are not involved in
the work of the governance body (or governance), i.e., the Board nor in its accreditation body, i.e., the Quality Assurance Committee (QAC). The Register Committee understood that in order to ensure better involvement of stakeholders, including students, in its governance structures, MFHEA
has foreseen legislative changes.
47. For the Committee it was unclear which particular changes will take place in order to address the lack of clear distinction between higher education and non-higher education activities and the lack of student involvement in the governance and work of the agency (in the Board and the
QAC), and whether the planned legislative changes have been adopted yet
48. In its additional representation, the agency informed that the clear distinction between MFHEA’s external quality assurance activities in higher
education and its other fields of work, will be ensured through structural changes in its organisational structure; the agency plans to set two units
tackling further and higher education separately.as of January
2025. Furthermore, the agency informed that legal provisions were amended to
include student representatives in the Quality Assurance Committee and the MFHEA Board and that students are now represented in both of them.
49. The Register Committee noted and welcomed the planned changes aiming to ensure clear distinction between its external quality assurance
activities in the field of higher education and its other fields of work and the involvement of students in the Board and the Quality Assurance Committee.
50. However, given the concerns raised above and that relevant parts of the presented actions are yet to be fully translated into the daily work of the
agency, they remain to be reviewed by an external review panel. Therefore, the Committee could not concur with the panel and found that the agency complies only partially with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – EVALAG – Partial compliance (2024) Student involvement in governance
EVALAG
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 02/07/2024 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Student involvement in governance Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “17. In its last decision for renewal of registration on EQAR (of 2019-11-05), evalag was found to be partially compliant with the standard as it had no clear overarching strategy, bringing together planning, budgeting and risk assessment. Furthermore, the main decision-making body, the Foundation Board, did not included a student member.
18. From the review report and the panel’s analysis the Register Committee noted that the main shortcomings identified in the previous decision were only minimally improved i.e., the statutory changes in order to involve student member in the Foundation Board, limits their involvement only in specific cases ( “If international standards in the field of study and teaching are dealt with, a student member may be called upon as a permanent or temporary, non-voting guest.”)
19. Furthermore, the Committee understood that evalag, at the time of the review, worked on a new overarching strategy bringing together planning, budgeting and risk assessment, however this strategy was to be approved only in July 2024.
20. Considering the minimal improvements made since the last decision, the Register Committee could not follow the panel’s judgement of compliance and found that evalag complies only partially with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – ANVUR – Partial compliance (2025) Lack of stakeholder involvement in governance bodies
ANVUR
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 14/03/2025 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Lack of stakeholder involvement in governance bodies Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “23. The Register Committee learned from the review report that the Governing Board of ANVUR consists exclusively of university professors, while no other stakeholders were involved in the governance of the agency.
24. In its additional representation, ANVUR explained that their regulations do not prevent any expert, regardless of which stakeholder group they belong to, from being a member of the Governing Board. In the Register Committee’s view, however, participation in the Governing Board is challenging, especially for students, due to the full-time character of the role, even though there are different governance arrangements and divisions of governance tasks which would enable broader stakeholder involvement. (e.g. by reducing the expected working hours for some stakeholder groups).
25. ANVUR further argued that stakeholders are involved in other bodies of the agency, such as the Advisory Board, leading to ANVUR’s governance being informed by stakeholders. While the Register Committee found the involvement of stakeholders in the work of the Advisory Board to be a positive practice, it noted that this does not fulfil the requirements of the standard which implies stakeholders’ involvement in strategic decision-making (governance), and not merely in the advisory processes of the agency.
26. Considering lack of stakeholder involvement, beyond the university academic staff, in ANVUR’s governance, the Register Committee was unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion and found that ANVUR only partially complies with ESG 3.1.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – AQUIB – Partial compliance (2024) Stakeholder involvement in governance
AQUIB
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/11/2024 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Stakeholder involvement in governance Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “15. The Register Committee learned that the governing body of AQUIB (i.e., the Board of Directors), is composed exclusively of representatives of the University of the Balearic Islands (UIB) and the regional government. The Board does not include student members nor other stakeholders.
16. The Register Committee learned that AQUIB has prepared a draft of the new Statutes which, in the review panel’s view, would ensure a more representative composition of the Board of Directors. However, these Statutes are not yet in force at the time of the review.
17. Considering lack of stakeholder involvement in AQUIB’s governance, the Register Committee was unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion of compliance and found that AQUIB only partially complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – ACCUA – Compliance (2024) stakeholders invovlement
ACCUA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/11/2024 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords stakeholders invovlement Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “13. In its last decision, the Register Committee found the agency to be partially compliant due to the lack of stakeholders involvement on governance level and its lack of strategic planning.
14. The Register Committee learned from the panel’s analysis that the agency has addressed the issues raised in the previous review. The Committee noted that ACCUA has involved students and other stakeholder as members of the Governing Council of the agency. Furthermore, the Committee noted that ACCUA adopted an Initial Action Plan which is well-conceived to carry forwards the agency's mission and vision.
15. Following the improvements towards ESG compliance undertaken by the agency, the Register Committee was able to follow the panel’s conclusion that the agency complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – SKVC – Compliance (2022) lack of internal appeals process for HEIs in exile
SKVC
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 25/10/2022 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords lack of internal appeals process for HEIs in exile Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “13. The Register Committee shared the panel's reservations that the inability for higher education institutions in exile to use SKVC's internal appeals process is a shortcoming.
14. Given that this only concerns one single institution at the moment and no accreditation has taken place so far, the Committee, however, did not consider this shortcoming material enough to influence the conclusion per this standard and concurred with the panel's conclusion that SKVC complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – FINEEC – Partial compliance (2022) Lack of formal complaints procedure; Appeals limited to negative decisions only
FINEEC
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/06/2022 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Lack of formal complaints procedure; Appeals limited to negative decisions only Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The institutions undergoing a review by FINEEC are limited to make an appeal only in a case of a negative
outcome.That the remarks on the review process are given in an informal manner.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – AI – Partial compliance (2021) Lack of formal complaints procedure and appeals' procedure
AI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 15/10/2021 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Lack of formal complaints procedure and appeals' procedure Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The appeals process remains to be led by an external body. The agency is not handling any formal complains or appeals itself.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – UKÄ – Partial compliance (2021) No formal complaints procedure; Advisory role of appeals commitee
UKÄ
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 18/03/2021 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords No formal complaints procedure; Advisory role of appeals commitee Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “UKÄ has no formal complaints procedure in place (p. 34), even though the panel was confident that any issues stakeholders have, related to the work of the agency, are taken up by UKÄ. The report further discussed the advisory role of the appeals committee and the panel was concerned that this approach, paired with the fact that the committee cannot make recommendations how to correct potential errors, could undermine the authority of the appeals committee.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – QQI – Compliance (2019) Scope of the appeals system
QQI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 05/11/2019 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Scope of the appeals system Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee noted the panel's remark that the outcomes of cyclical institutional reviews can currently not be appealed, while noting thata provider “may still wish to challenge the findings in a way that would be better suited to an appeals process rather than a complaints process” (p. 33).The Register Committee has generally understood the standard to require that all results of external quality assurance processes be open to appeal, hence including reports that do not include “categorical decisions”.The Committee therefore underlined that QQI should consider widening the scope of its appeal system in monitoring the fitness for purpose of the current arrangements, per the panel's remarks. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – EVALAG – Compliance (2019) Independence of the appeals committee
EVALAG
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 05/11/2019 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Independence of the appeals committee Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In the previous decision to renew evalag’s registration the Register Committee flagged for attention how evalag has followed up the recommendation to separate the bodies in charge of appeals from the bodies deciding on accreditation, and to rule out parallel memberships.The review panel confirmed the independence of the appeals committee from the evalag decision-making body for accreditation. The panel further reported that parallel memberships are now ruled out. The Register Committee therefore concluded that the flag has been addressed.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – AHPGS – Compliance (2020) brief procedure for complaints and appeals
AHPGS
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 16/03/2020 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords brief procedure for complaints and appeals Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “33. […] there was only a brief procedure for complaints and appeals, and that the process was not fully known by the universities concerned; the Appeals Committee was not yet appointed, neither another body that deals with complaints and appeals.
34. [...] a statutory change, introducing the legal basis of the Appeals Committee, had entered into force and that the Appeals Committee had subsequently been appointed.
35. Having considered the additional information, the Register Committee concurred with the review panel's conclusion that AHPGS complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – NOKUT – Partial compliance (2018) Absence of a formal complaints procedure
NOKUT
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 06/12/2018 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Absence of a formal complaints procedure Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee noted the panel's analysis that the complaints procedure “is less clearly defined”. While the Committee acknowledged that the prevailing culture of dialogue meant that institutions were aware of their opportunities to voice complaints, it considered that the possibility to complain and the related procedures should be explicitly spelled out, e.g. in the relevant guides for institutions, as required by the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – ANECA – Compliance (2018) Availabily of appeals for monitoring procedures
ANECA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 11/09/2018 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Availabily of appeals for monitoring procedures Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (09/06/2018)
RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee also noted that appeals are not made available in case of MONITOR procedure […]. The review panel stated as the activity has a supportive /developmental nature and that no decisions are taken on its basis no appeals can be issues. The panel noted that it had discussed the complaints (and appeals) procedures with key stakeholders, who expressed their satisfaction with the functioning of the processes and confirmed that the agency considered all appeals and complaints according to its policy and within a reasonable time-frame.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – SKVC – Partial compliance (2017) Absence of a complaints procedure
SKVC
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 16/11/2017 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Absence of a complaints procedure Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “While the Register Committee noted that appeals’ procedures are well defined, accessible and handled adequately, the Register Committee noted that SKVC’s methodologies and principles do not cover complaints.The panel did not find how higher education institutions can raise issues of concerns or how they are handled by SKVC in a professional and consistent manner.The Committee underlined the recommendation of the panel for the development of a specific complaints procedure that should be made easily accessible to higher education institutions.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – ASHE – Partial compliance (2017) Absence of appeals procedure for initial accreditation and inadequate body to address the appeal.
ASHE
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Absence of appeals procedure for initial accreditation and inadequate body to address the appeal. Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The panel considered that the body deciding on appeals should not be identical to the body that made the decision being appealed, but identified an overlap in the case of ASHE. It further noted that there is no appeals procedure (internal to ASHE) for initial accreditation, but only a possibility to appeal decisions in a court.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – IAAR – Partial compliance (2017) Conflict of interest: same members in the Appeals Commission and Accreditation Council
IAAR
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Conflict of interest: same members in the Appeals Commission and Accreditation Council Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The panel noted that IAAR established a commission to handle appeals and complaints in late 2015 that consists of a number of members representing national representatives of employer bodies. The review panel formed the view that the membership of the Commission was not well aligned with its role and purpose, having the focus almost exclusively on employer representatives. The panel further added the potential conflict of interest considering the overlapping membership of the Appeals Commission that of the Accreditation Council. The panel recommended the broadening of the Commission’s membership and a separation from the members of the Accreditation Council”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – ASIIN – Compliance (2017) No possibility to appeal in cases where the review does not end in a judgment
ASIIN
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords No possibility to appeal in cases where the review does not end in a judgment Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The Committee noted that for the accreditation procedures the appeals procedure is regulated in the statute and in the board of complaints’ rules of procedure but that there is no clearly defined appeals procedure for evaluations and other external QA procedures not resulting in a formal decisionIn the additional representation, ASIIN explained that it had clarified that its regular complaints procedures, applicable to accreditation procedures so far, is also applied to certification procedures and in type-1 evaluation procedures. The Register Committee confirmed that this is indeed clarified in public documents.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – AAQ – Partial compliance (2016) Limited scope of complaints
AAQ
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
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – EVALAG – Compliance (2024) Definition of terms; Complaints; Appeals
EVALAG
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 02/07/2024 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Definition of terms; Complaints; Appeals Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “15. The Register Committee noted that the Complaints and Appeals Policy is detailed, covering the potential causes for a complaint or an appeal and it is easily accessible on the agency’s website. However, the Committee noted the panel’s concerns on the need to clarify the terms ‘complaints’ and ‘appeals’.
16. The Committee, therefore, followed the panel’s conclusion that the agency continues to comply with the standard. The Committee, however, shared the panel’s view that the agency should clarify what is meant by the terms ‘complaints’ and ‘appeals’ in all its documents, including the name of the ‘Complaints Commission’.”
Full decision: see agency register entry