Precedents database

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	06/12/2018
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Functioning of the appeals processes; no possibility to appeal with the body that carried out the review
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that higher education institutions can file appeals for the decision taken by the AIC committees on the accreditation of study directions (CAS) and the licensing of study programmes (CLSP). In such cases the chairperson of the agency’s board reviews the conclusions of the Appeals Committee and takes the final decision on the appeal (review report p. 57). The Committee found that as long as the final decision may be changed by the chairperson of AIC, the integrity of the appeals process might be affected. In case of the institutional accreditations carried out by AIC, the Register Committee noted that appeals can be filed only against the Ministry of Education and Science’s (MoES) decision, in a court of law, following the Latvian Administrative Procedure and not against AIC‘s report and review processes. The Register Committee considered that external quality assurance processes should always include an internal possibility to appeal with the responsible body that carried out the review itself.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/06/2018
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Availability of appeals & clarify in the role of the 'Appeals Committee'
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that NEAA established an Appeals Committee that can make recommendations to the Accreditation Council (AC), but no binding decisions. The review panel, however, considered that the type of issues handled by that committee were complaints rather than appeals.The Register Committee concurs with the panel that the ESG should not be interpreted as requiring the establishment of more than one appeal systems. The Register Committee considers that the wording of the standard suggests an internal system, set up and operated by the agency. The Register Committee considers as the key requirement of the standard that the outcomes of external quality assurance are open to appeal. Furthermore, the possibility to appeal needs to be clearly defined and communicated to the institutions concerned, cover the possible grounds for appeal indicated in the guidelines and be effective and efficient in practice.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Absence of a formal complaints procedure
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (20/11/2018)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that the agency does not have a clear, structured and effective complaints process. In its self-evaluation report the agency acknowledged that complaints reach HAC by letter, mail or telephone enquiries, and are handled on a case by case basis. HAC also explained that in practice complaints (referring to the evaluation process) may be also considered as part of the appeals heard by the Board of Appeals, but they are mostly considered through the agency informal processes. The Register Committee considered HAC’s explanation that in case of a positive result of an evaluation complaints cannot be lodged, but underlined that any individual or organisation should nevertheless have the possibility to bring to the attention of HAC substantiated concerns about the evaluation process or conduct of review experts in line with a formal complaints policy.

In its additional representation the agency acknowledged that it has not introduced a separate process for complaints but that it is currently in the process of changing its regulation to implement a formal complaints procedure.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	15/03/2019
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	No possibility to appeal in cases where the review does not end in a judgment
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (05/11/2018)
RC decision	Compliance

“The Committee noted that appeals are only possible in those review methods that result in a formal judgement on some type of scale, but not for methods that results in a report alone; the panel considered a complaints process sufficient in those cases. The Register Committee concurred with the panel's conclusion that QAA complies with the standard, considering that the current wording of the EQAR Policy on the Use and Interpretation of the ESG might be understood in that way. The Committee, however, underlined that also a report without a formal summarising judgement or decision contains (published) judgements about an institution. In the interest of full accountability these should thus in principle be open to appeal, too.”

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; no possibility to appeal with the body that carried out the procedure.
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that in the case of refusal of accreditation, the higher education institution concerned may lodge an appeal to the NCHE who is the responsible body for deciding on the appeals on the agency's decisions. The Register Committee further noted that NEAQA does not have in place any procedures for complaints. While the review panel found that representatives of the evaluated higher education were fully familiar with the appeals arrangements, the panel recommended that appeals should be nevertheless considered by a separate body within the structure of an agency. The panel further recommended the establishment of a complaints procedure.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	04/04/2019
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Concerns on the accesibility of the appeals procedure and issues of transparency in handling appeals
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (26/02/2021)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that ARACIS does not have a permanent appeals body but with each new case an ad hoc commission is established by the Executive Board to deal with. The agency explained that the small number of appeals and complaints it has received to date did not justify moving to more permanent arrangements of handling complaints and appeals.

The Register Committee found that the involvement of the Executive Board of the Council in establishing app [...].

The documentation provided by the agency in its additional representation shows that the nomination of Appeals Commission members follows ARACIS’ operational procedure ‘Solutions of appeals of higher education institutions’.

The agency explained that its (ad-hoc) Appeals Commission includes one member of the consultative commission (i.e. academics, former Council or Commissions members), external evaluators from the National Register of Evaluators and one inspector from the Quality Assurance Direction (technical department of ARACIS). Over the past four years the Appeals Commissions received 46 appeals, about 1.93% of the total of number of external evaluations performed by ARACIS.

ARACIS argued that the Executive Board is delegated to manage the activity of the agency and therefore is involved in the selection process of Appeals Commission members. The selection process follows strictly defined criteria that would not allow the Executive Board’s interference with the decision making on the appeal.

While the Register Committee welcomed the clarification on the appeals process and the publication of ‘ARACIS Solutions of appeals of higher education institutions’, the Committee noted that the members nominated to act in the Appeals Committee are not published and that the revised procedure is not easily accessible on the website.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Informal complaints only, appeals only with the decision-making body
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The review panel explained that NQA has no formal role in the appeal procedure on assessment of degree programmes as this is handled according to the Dutch accreditation system by NVAO. With regards to complaints, the panel noted that there is no formally defined procedure, rather, complaints are addressed by the agency in an informal way. The Register Committee underlined the panel’s recommendation of developing a complaints procedure that may handle any relevant issues in a formal manner. The Committee further underlined that the agency is also expected to have an appeals procedure in place. While appeals are handled by NVAO in case of assessments of degree programmes, NQA bears the responsibility for the report and its conclusion; higher education institution should thus be allowed to appeal (where the case) such results.”

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 formal complaints procedures
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (16/03/2025)
RC decision	Compliance

“In its analysis the panel found that the procedures on appeals against decisions are well designed but noted that the agency “lacked a solid and formal comprehensive complaints procedure, even if some elements of complaints-handling are there and informal handling of complaints by NVAO normally suffices”.The Register Committee sought further clarification from the panel concerning the extent to which the ability of NVAO to handle complaints might be affected.The panel explained in its response letter that the comments to NVAO were intended to highlight that the complaints procedure could be more clearly defined and communicated. The panel also learned that NVAO took the panel’s recommendation following the review and developed a comprehensive complaints procedure.The panel confirmed that NVAO’s regulations on governing principles include indications to both complaints and “remarks”. Stakeholders, such as panel members, staff or students, may report to NVAO matters arising during the assessment process that could affect the independence of the assessment.The Register Committee noted that NVAO’s system of appeals is well developed and that the review panel was satisfied with NVAO’s processes for handling complaints.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Lack of impartiality in the appeals process; lack of clear complaints procedures.
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel learned from its discussion with the agency that higher education institutions can point out faults in the procedure of the review in their statement to the review report. While higher education institutions are given the possibility to make a statement on the review report the panel underlined that there was not a clear indication on whether higher education institutions can issue a complaint regarding the course of the procedure. In its statement on the review report the agency stated the appeal procedure has been published on its website and also included in its quality management handbook. According to the procedure, once the appeal is lodged by a higher education institution it will be passed on – after consultation with the review panel – to the responsible Committee who can decide on whether to allow the appeal to go forth. In case this is granted the appeal will be submitted to the FIBAA Appeal’s Committee for examination. The Register Committee considered that the current procedure, whereby the Committee that issued the initial decision decides on whether the appeal of that institution will be passed to the Appeals Committee, might affect the impartiality of the process. The Register Committee further found the procedure to be documented only rudimentarily, with little or no explanation on the issues that could be raised under the appeal, no provision on the expected timeline to process a complaint, publication policy etc.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Inadequate appeals process
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The review panel noted that – while being clearly defined and published – “the process of appeals established by ANQA cannot be considered an appeal, but a second opportunity giving the institution time to improve its situation and then undergo one more evaluation and receive a new decision in a short period of time”. The Register Committee concurred with the panel that the ANQA process differs substantially from the common understanding of an “appeal” and considered that it was doubtful whether the process was fit to address the type of issues it is expected to address, i.e. “adversely assessed criteria and/or alleged procedural violations against the institution”. The Register Committee considered that the standard does not prescribe a specific appeals procedure and that the review report identified serious shortcomings in the appeals procedure.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Limited scope of the appeals system
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In its decision of initial inclusion (of 18/11/2010) the Register Committee flagged for attention FIN(H)EEC’s appeals procedure. The Committee noted that considerations should be given to this matter even though FIN(H)EEC’s decisions do not have a formal consequence (in terms of an institution’s license or financing), its audits result in a formal result, i.e. the report. The panel stated that audit results are considered expert opinions and according to Finnish law, appeals can be filed against administrative decisions only. The Register Committee underlined that a system for complaints and appeals should be in place irrespective of the formal status, while the status of the appeal system may be different from the common system of appeals that might be applicable to public administration. The panel explained that FINEEC has nevertheless made it possible for higher education institutions under review to request an assessment of the results of an audit or a re-audit on the grounds that the audit has not been carried out in compliance with the audit manual. Higher education institutions cannot, however, appeal the actual conclusion of the audit or accreditation team nor the decisions of the decision-making committees, a situation the panel described as “less optimal”. The panel further established that until now there was only one request to review the result of an audit, but the case was not yet decided upon by the time of the site visit. While an appeals system is established and publicly described, due to the lack of actual practice the Register Committee was so far unable to conclude whether the current system, limited in scope, was sufficient to safeguard the interest of institutions under review. The Committee noted that practical experiences with the appeals system should be addressed in the next review of FINEEC.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Conflict of interest of the body responsible for handling complaint/appeals
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee flagged in its decision of initial inclusion the procedure for complaints and appeals. While recognising the agency's efforts in developing regulations for appeals and complaints, the panel found that the current system does not clarify who is the responsible party (ministry or agency) in handling complaints and recommended a coordination with the responsible ministry. In its statement to the review report (of 20/03/2017) the agency stated that it cannot interfere in the decision-making process of the ministry and that coordinating a complaints procedure with the ministry would affect its independence and confuse its role. HCERES further explained that in case of a complaint that concerns evaluation reports, the case would be handled by the agency, and in case the issue concerns a contract or decision of the ministry, the case will be handled by the ministry. In its Substantive Change Report (of 23/02/2017) HCERES described further updates to its appeals system that was adopted in October 2016, i.e. after the review panel’s visit in June

2016. The agency reported that eight new members have been appointed to the Appeals’ Commission who would address complaints concerning all activities of HCERES. The Commission will consider issues regarding the implementation or findings of an evaluation, the selection of experts, the decision of the accreditation commission and the decisions to validate other bodies’ evaluation procedure. The Register Committee noted that the majority of members in the Appeals’ Committee are also members of HCERES’s other bodies responsible for parts of the evaluation procedure (i.e. Board, evaluation departments) and might thus have a conflict of interest in handling complaints.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Functioning of the appeals process
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“With a view to ECCE’s complaints and appeals processes, institutions held the view that there was little point pursuing a complaint or appeal as the only restitution available was annulment of the whole accreditation process. The panel formed the view that ECCE’s current appeals’ procedure required updating and further improvement to meet the expectations of the standard. In its clarification to its additional representation (letter of 02/05/2017) ECCE responded that it had since the review, resolved one appeal situation (in favour of the institution) and that the agency is currently taking steps to revise its Appeals and Complaints processes.While the Register Committee noted the agency’s intention to revise its complaints and appeals processes, the Committee considered that this has not yet taken place...”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Absence of clear complaints and appeals procedures
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that higher education institutions whose procedures are decided on by the Commission for International Affairs (KIA) do not seem to have an option to lodge complaints or appeals. The Register Committee further considered the panel’s analysis showing that institutions do not have the possibility to launch a complaint to settle conflicts related to ZEvA’s procedures. The panel review also noted that the complaints procedure employed by ZEvA is not visibly communicated on the agency’s website. In its letter to the review panel (of 31/5/2016) ZEvA stated that it has reviewed its rules of procedure to allow handling of all complaints and appeals’ procedures. Additional information on appeals and complaints have been added to the website page of the agency. While the Register Committee took note of ZevA’s response to the review report it could not fully satisfy itself that the updated procedure for complaints and appeals address all concerns raised by the panel”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/03/2023
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	allegations, appeals, complaints
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“16. The Register Committee noted that the agency defines three different processes for allegations, appeals and complaints.

17. The allegations (considered as a form of feedback opportunity for the institutions) are dealt with by the Technical Committees, who is also responsible for drafting the reports (see also under ESG 2.6).

18. The appeals and complaints procedures are defined by law and are under the legal competency of the Canary government.

19. The Committee noted, that ACCUEE’s appeals and complaints policies are limited as the agency does not have its own appeals and complaints processes or a separate body in considering complaints or appeals.

20. The Committee considered that external quality assurance processes should always include an internal possibility to appeal and complain with the responsible body that carried out the review itself.

21. The Register Committee noted that ACCUEE intends to appoint an independent and permanent body, Guarantee Commission that will consider all appeals and complaints related to all procedures that are in the scope of the ESG.

22. The Register Committee welcomed ACCUE’s intention to set up a separate body to handle appeals and complaints, but the Committee underlined that such changes are yet to be implemented and to be reviewed. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel that ACCUEE only partially complies with ESG 2.7.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	30/06/2023
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	no possibility to appeal the formal decisions
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (15/02/2023)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“23. The panel raised concerns about the slight unclarity and overlap between the “appeals and complaints procedure” and the separate “complaints procedure”. Even though the wording is unusual, the Register Committee considered that both appeals and complaints, as understood in the ESG, are generally possible.

24. The Committee obtained clarification by the panel on the composition of the Appeals Committee. Even though the members are different from the QAAC, the Committee shares the panel’s concern that all but one come from the rather small chiropractic community.

25. The Register Committee’s further noted that there is no possibility to appeal the formal decision by the QAAC, only the expert report. The Committee regarded this as problematic given that the QAAC alone decides on the accreditation term.

26. In its additional representation the agency explained that the judgement itself of the QAAC cannot be appealed solely on the basis of disagreement with the decision, but can be made based on incorrect procedures, or if it was executed in an unfair and discriminatory manner. The Committee thus understood that while ECCE makes possible appeals based on procedural error, errors of fact, mitigating circumstances where material was not available at the time and for situation where members of QAAC or ECCE behaved in a discriminatory or unprofessional manner, the agency does not allow for an appeal of QAAC’s judgement itself. The Committee thus finds that the appeals process is limited, given that the reviewed higher education institution may not challenge based on e.g., criteria that may have not been correctly applied or disagreements in how standards were interpreted by QAAC.

27. The Committee noted that the agency considered and upheld an appeal against a QAAC formal decision, but also noted that there is no public documentation on this appeal and that the agency does not have any information on its website on the composition of its Appeal’s Committee.

28. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel’s conclusion that ECCE only partially complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/03/2023
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Independence of the appeal's body
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The panel argued that there was “no avenue available to have an

external review of a decision” and noted the “absence of external

adjudication in the mechanism used”. The Register Committee expects that

an appeal is considered by another body than the one whose

decision/report is appealed (see interpretation 13 of the ESG); this will

nevertheless normally be a body of the agency, as the standard requires an

internal appeals process (see also interpretation 12 of the ESG). As the

HAHE appeals committee consists of different persons than the (current)

EAC, this requirement is formally fulfilled, even if HAHE may reconsider the

practice of appointing only retired EAC members when it reviews its

appeals procedures as recommended by the panel, Further, the fact that the appeals' committee makes a recommendation to the

EAC is compatible with EQAR's expectations (see interpretation 14 of the

ESG).”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/10/2023
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	appeals and complaints, committee
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“13. In its initial application for inclusion the Register Committee raised concerns regarding the lack of an internal appeals system within the agency.

14. The Register Committee noted that since the last external review of NEAA, nothing has changed in relation to the possibilities for higher education institutions to make an appeals with the agency.

15. The Register Committee further noted, that NEAA does not have its own appeals process nor a separate body in considering appeals and that the only existing appeals procedures are outside of NEAA’s remit, defined by law and under the legal competency of the Bulgarian courts.

16. The Committee considered that external quality assurance processes should always include an internal possibility to appeal within the responsible body that carried out the review itself.

17. In its representation the agency provided full documentation on its new internal provisions for complaints and appeals and for the functioning of its body the Complaints and Appeals Committee. The Committee noted that the new body is a standing committee within the agency, fully operative with permanent members and clear provisions outlined in the Statutes of the Complaints and Appeals Committee.

18. Having been able to verify that the agency provides both internal processes for complaints and appeals, the Register Committee finds that the initial concerns have been addressed. The Register Committee therefore concluded that NEAA now complies with ESG 2.7.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	12/12/2023
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	appeals procedure
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“27. The Register Committee noted in its past decision that the chairperson of the agency’s board takes the final decision on the appeal and reviews the conclusions of the Appeals Committee. The Register Committee found this may affect the integrity of the appeals process. Additionally, the Register Committee found that higher education institutions do not have the possibility in case of institutional accreditation to appeal the report with AIC (only with ministry).

28. In the Substantive Change Report (of 2022-03-15), AIC elaborated further on the modalities for potential appeals against accreditation decisions regarding the Accreditation of foreign study programmes. The explanations, however, left open how such appeals would be considered.

29. In the review report the panel explained the possibility to appeal accreditation decisions made by the agency. The panel considers that the appeals procedure which has been developed, and the Appeals Committee which has been compiled in January 2022, brought the agency’s review procedures for Latvian higher education institutions in line with the standard.

30. The Register Committee considered the statement of the agency regarding the appeals and complaints procedures and noted that the amendments to the legislation were approved and an appeal procedure including independent appeals commission, has been set and is functioning. The Register Committee welcomes the progress made, but follows the panel’s concern on the lack of the transparency of external quality assurance system, due to a lack of written procedure for hearing complaints.

31. The Register Committee underscores the panel recommendations on the publication of the procedures to follow-up complaints concerning activities of the agency in Latvia and on the development of an appeals and complaints procedure for its accreditation procedure for foreign degrees.

32. Having considered the improvements by the agency, the Register Committee noted the need to further elaborate on the procedure for complaints. The Register Committee agrees on compliance for this standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	12/12/2023
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Lack of transparency in the agency’s appeals processes, accessibility of Appeals Procedure
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“11. In its past decision, the Register Committee raised a concern regarding the lack of transparency in the agency’s processes concerning the members nominated to act in the Appeals Committee. The Committee also noted at that time that the appeals procedure was not easily accessible on ARACIS’s website.

12. The Register Committee noted from the analysis of the panel that ARACIS has appointed a Permanent Appeals Commission for a four-year term and published the composition of the commission. The Committee also learned that as of October 2022, ARACIS has a new, integrated and simplified Appeals and Complaints procedure that can be easily retrieved from the website1.

13. The Committee welcomed the newly updated procedure, and while noting that the procedure is rather generic in what concerns handling of complains, that it satisfies the requirements of the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry