Precedents database

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	04/04/2024
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	publication of reports
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (04/10/2023)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“20. In the past decision, the Register Committee noted that reports of its initial (ex-ante) programme evaluation/opinion-giving process were not published. In its recent review, the panel confirmed that all “expert reports and resolutions of the opinion giving process are now published and available on PKA’s website”.

21. While the Committee noted that PKA has published all decisions from the initial (ex-ante) programme evaluation/opinion-giving process, the Register Committee however found that such decisions did (in particular after July 2020) not include full reports. Given the missing number of a large number of full reports the Register Committee sought further clarifications from the review panel. The panel explained that they understood there was a delay in the publication of reports but that the statutory requirement is for PKA to publish all reports. This reassured the panel that the earlier concern regarding the publication of reports was resolved.

22. Given that PKA has not published all reports from its opinion giving process, the Register Committee found that the earlier concern has not been addressed.

23. In its representation, PKA provided information on the planned changes in its provisions to ensure publishing all reports from its opinion-giving processes. PKA explained that it would be possible to publish all reports from its opinion giving process without the need to wait for information from the Minister regarding their final decision through these changes.

24. Furthermore, in its additional documentation provided on 2024-03-28 PKA informed of its statutory changes where the planned changes have been done.

25. The Register Committee welcomed the actions taken by PKA. However, these changes in the provisions remain to be considered and reviewed by an external review panel to determine whether the changes have been properly implemented.

26. The Register Committee therefore could not concur with the review panel’s conclusion, and found that PKA complies only partially with ESG 2.6.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	12/12/2023
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	publication of decisions
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“23. The panel’s analysis shows that AIC does publish full reports of the experts panels for its procedures ‘Accreditation of higher education institution’, ‘Assessment and accreditation of a study field’, ‘Licensing of study programme’ and ‘Accreditation of study programmes abroad’.

24. The Register Committee further noted however, that these published reports and the decision letter do not reflect the additional elements which have been provided and taken into consideration after the site visit nor the additional tasks given to the higher education institution.

25. The Register Committee could not find any new supporting evidence to AIC’s position in the additional representation. Both from the panel’s report and the AIC website, it was clear that only the duration of accreditation terms is published, while the full decisions are not published together with the reports.

26. The Register Committee therefore concludes that there is no sufficient transparency in AIC’s reporting processes and therefore concurs with the panel’s conclusion of partial compliance.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	12/12/2023
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	reports sometime lacking depth of analysis, expert reports not always publlshed
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“7. The Register Committee noted from the panel’s analysis that the central part of the agency’s reports appears to be merely a check list “occasionally lacking depth of analysis and evidence-based material”. The panel further raised concerns with regards to the accessibility of reports on the ARACIS website, which the panel found somewhat challenging to navigate.

8. The Committee further noted that in the case of doctoral study programmes, study domain accreditation and study domain authorisation ARACIS does not publish the experts’ final proposals for decision. The Committee does not understand why the final proposal for decision/expert conclusion is left out, in particular since this is included in all other external quality assurance activities of ARACIS. The Register Committee underlined that this approach affects the transparency of the agency’s decision making processes in the case of third cycle reviews.

9. The Committee also found that for some of its external QA activities the agency had changed its approach from publishing the full expert report to only publishing a short excerpt of the expert report i.e., the second cycle study domain accreditation reports only include up to a one page excerpt from the expert review report. The Register Committee underlined that it can be of public interest to know the basis on which the final reports are being developed, and that the publication (at least as annex) of the full reports is important to ensure the transparency in the decision-making of the Council.

10. Based on the above raised concerns, the Register Committee could not follow the panel’s conclusion of compliance and therefore concluded that ARACIS complies only partially with ESG 2.6.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	12/12/2023
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	publication of reports
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (28/11/2023)
RC decision	Compliance

“9. The panel reported that it could not identify any clear links where the decisions and the evaluation reports of the review panels are being published on the agency’s website.

10. The Register Committee sought further clarification from the agency (see minuted clarification) in order to understand the agency’s practice regarding the publication of reports and decision.

11. The agency explained (and presented) how the reports are being published on its website i.e. via links within a document uploaded on its website each time a new report is finalised. SAAHE further explained that the agency also publishes, the applications and self-assessment reports of higher education institutions undergoing review procedures. The agency is aware that the current way of publishing reports and decision is not ideal but explained that it was hesitant in making any changes during its review process.

12. The Register Committee sought further clarification on the lack of published reports in 2022 and

2023.

13. The agency explained that following a change in legislation, in 2021, all higher education institutions are required to undergo institutional accreditation and had to apply for such a review by the end of

2022. The agency clarified that while all 33 higher education institutions are have applied for an institutional accreditation, at the moment no procedure has yet been finalised. A pending decision by SAAHE’s Executive Board is expected in February 2024.(see minuted clarification)

14. Having considered the report and the clarification by the agency, the Committee concluded that despite the difficulty in accessing the links of published reports, that SAAHE has been publishing full reports and decisions on its website. The Register Committee underlined the recommendation by the panel to ensure the publishing of reports and decisions in a more accessible and informative way than the current practice.

15. The Register Committee noted that the agency is expected to inform the Register once it has concluded its first institutional accreditation procedure.

16. Having considered the review report and the clarification by the agency, the Register Committee was unable to concur with the panel’s judgement of partial compliance, and concluded that SAAHE complies with ESG 2.6.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	04/04/2024
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Publication of reports with negative outcomes, publication of expert panel reports
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“8. In its previous decision for renewal of registration on EQAR (of 11-05- 2019), Unibasq was found to be partially compliant with the standard as it did not publish reports of its ex-ante accreditation resulting with a negative outcome. From the report, the Register Committee learned that the agency now publishes these reports too.

9. The Register Committee further learned that the preliminary and final review reports shared with the higher education institutions and the public do not include the expert panel reports; these reports are only available to the Unibasq’s Committees.

10. The Register Committee found that the agency addressed the concerns raised in its earlier decision regarding the publication of negative reports from its ex ante accreditation procedure. It, however, shared the panel’s concerns that the agency does not fully comply with this standard because of the lack of transparency regarding the expert panel reports.

11. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel’s conclusion and found that the agency remains partially compliant with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/10/2024
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	publication of reports
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“39. The Register Committee learned from the analysis of the panel, that the agency did not publish all of its reports from its programme and provider

accreditation procedures.

40. In its statement on the report, the agency informed that with the publication of the new manuals, as of January 2024 and January 2025 respectively, all accreditation reports and decisions will be published on its website. The Register Committee, however, could not find any recently

published reports when performing an additional check on the MFHEA’s website.

41. In its additional representation, MFHEA informed that as of January 2024, all accreditation decisions are to be published on the MFHEA website

together with the expert panel reports. MFHEA further explained that “the reason no Provider Accreditation Reports have been found on MFHEA

website is that since this is a recent development, to date no provider accreditation have been finalised and therefore there were no provider

accreditation reports to publish” and that “with regards to programme accreditations there is a small number of reports which are ready. It is expected that actual publication will happen in January 2025…”.

42. The Register Committee took note and welcomed the planned actions by MFHEA to ensure that all reports and decisions are publicly available. The Committee found that, however, the presented actions are yet to be implemented in practice and once implemented, remain to be reviewed by

an external review panel.

43. Therefore, the Committee concurred with the panel that the agency complies only partially with the standard.”

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

“10. In the previous decision for renewal of registration (of 2019-11-05), the Register Committee found CTI to be partially compliant with the standard as it only published summary of evaluation reports which lacked important details from the full reports.

11. From the external review report, the Register Committee learned that a new template, which includes the full report, was introduced. Furthermore the Committee understood from the analysis of the panel, since 2019, CTI started publishing in full all of its reports.

12. Having addressed the earlier concern regarding publication of full reports, the Register Committee concurred with the panel’s conclusion and found that the agency now complies with the standard. The Committee, however, underlined the panel’s recommendations that the agency ensures that the reports are more analytical, their clarity and soundness are improved as well as their visibility on the agency's website.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/11/2024
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	publication of reports, negative
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“7. In its previous decision, the Register Committee found the agency to be partially compliant due to the lack of publication of reports with negative results of its ex-ante verification of study programmes.

8. The Register Committee learned that ACCUA now publishes reports with negative and positive results of all evaluations processes except for reviews of universities for recognition on its website. From the report, the Committee learned that these reviews only occur by a request from the regional ministry and are sporadic. The Committee further understood that the agency is not authorised to publish the reports as this is in the remit of the regional parliament.

9. Given the improvements made in publication of the negative reports, the Register Committee could concur with the panel that the agency now complies with the standard. The Register Committee, nevertheless, highlighted the panel’s recommendation that the agency should raise the issue with the publication of the results of the reviews of universities for recognition with the regional authorities to ensure that these reports are made available to the public.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Quality of reports, lack of publication of negative reports
Panel conclusion	Non-compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“18. The Register Committee understood from the panel’s analysis that the final reports resulting from the activity European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes differ substantially from the draft reports prepared by the review panel. This is due to the possibility given to the Degree Assessment Commission (DAC), the responsible body for assessment, certification, and accreditation, to modify the draft expert reports.

19. The Register Committee further noted that during the interim stage of the review, higher education institutions, besides providing factual comments, can also address the shortcomings identified in the draft expert reports, with these results being considered and later included in the final report by the DAC. This process can lead to changes in judgements, removal of recommendations and suggestions, and substantial alterations of the text prepared by the expert panels.

20. In their statement to the report (Annex 2), the agency clarified that addressing shortcomings identified in the draft report is part of ex-ante verification for new degrees since the programmes are not yet implemented and the final modifications are evaluated before the publication of the final report.

21. The Register Committee further learned that the reports from the European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes lacked a critical appraisal of the evidence, which is primarily based on self-evaluation reports and supporting documentation rather than gathered during site visits.

22. The Register Committee additionally learned from the panel analysis that the agency does not publish negative reports from its ex-ante procedures. This could not be specifically verified for the reports resulting from the European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes, since only two reviews have been completed at the moment of the site visit, both with a positive outcome.

23. In their statement to the report, ACSUCYL explained that they publish negative reports except for ones resulting from ex-ante procedures, as their platform does not allow inclusion of reports on programmes that are not listed in the University Register of Centres and Degrees, the Spanish national register of degrees and university centres. However, the agency publishes these reports on DEQAR.

24. The Register Committee considered the agency’s explanation but underlined that, as per the standard, all reports should be published irrespective of the outcome. Furthermore, the Committee emphasised that in the aim of strengthening transparency, when ACSUCYL’s reports are published on any platform, including the agency’s website, this should include all reports.

25. In its additional representation, ACSUCYL presented their plans to address the issues of the format and quality of the reports and to create a dedicated working group for this task. Additionally, the agency noted that they have already started publishing negative ex-ante reports on their website, and the repository now includes all the historical data as well.

26. The Register Committee welcomed ACSUCYL’s plans to address concerns on the format and quality of reports and was able to verify that the agency is now publishing its ex-ante reports. The Committee, however, found that the actions presented to address the remaining concerns raised by the panel and the Register Committee are yet to be introduced, implemented in practice, and evaluated through external review.

27. The Register Committee acknowledged concerns raised by the panel about the lack of evidence in the review reports and the alterations made by the DAC, noting that the activity European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes does not comply with the standard. Nevertheless, under the assumption that the rest of the activities remain compliant with the standard since the last full review, the Register Committee concluded that ACSUCYL overall complies partially with ESG 2.6.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Quality of reports; publication of negative reports
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“9. Since the registration on EQAR (in 2015-01-31), BAC has been found partially compliant due to concerns on the quality of its reports and lack of publication of negative reports. In the last decision for renewal of registration (of 2020-11-02), the Register Committee noted that the reports provided insufficient qualitative insight and lacked clear and consistent inclusion of evidence, analysis, and findings. Additionally, BAC still have not had published any negative reports and decisions.

10. The Register Committee learned from the panel analysis that while BAC has revised its report template in order to provide more references to evidence and analytical content, the concerns on the quality of reports remained pertinent. As noted by the panel, while inspectors analyse a substantial amount of evidence, this is not always reflected in the inspection reports.

11. The Register Committee also learned from the panel analysis that, although the agency has changed its policy to publish negative reports and decisions, they have not had any negative reports in practice since their last review.

12. The Register Committee acknowledged the actions taken by the agency towards ensuring publication of all of its reports. The Committee, however, considered that the quality of reporting, including the insufficient evidence in the inspection reports, persists to be an issue. Following this, the Committee concurred with the panel that the agency is partially compliant with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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