Precedents database

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	18/03/2021
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Implementation of an appeals process and information about the appeals committee
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“ The Register Committee noted from the panel’s analysis that the agency’s appeals and complaints processes were not clearly defined. The panel stressed that as the agency moves towards an institutional accreditation process, it will need to reevaluate its current processes for both complaints and appeals.

The Committee further noted that the agency does not have a designated body to handle appeals, but that they are considered by the Council in consultation with the IEE Commission. In its additional representation, THEQC explained that it has developed and integrated the complaints process into its Feedback Management System. The Register Committee was able to verify that the new complaints process and form is easily accessible on THEQC’s website. With a view to appeals, the Register Committee welcomed the decision to establish a distinct Appeals Committee to handle appeals and took note of THEQC’s newly developed Directive of Complaints and Appeals. The Committee, however, noted that the Appeals Committee is not part of THEQC’s organisational chart and that no information is provided on the members of the Appeals Committee. The Register Committee asked the agency to elaborate on whether any other provisions have been added to its Complaints and Appeals regulation. The agency clarified in its response letter that the latest version of the Rules of Procedure of the Appeals Committee dated 19/05/2021was now in use and published on the agency’s website (only available in German) which include minor updates. The Register Committee noted that the additions to the updated procedure are in line with the expectation of the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by NASM
Decision of	02/11/2020
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Scope of the appeals system, clarity, independent decision making body
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that MusiQuE’s appeals procedure only applies to the reviews that result in an accreditation decision, but does not cover the agency’s enhancement type of reviews. Since higher education institutions may have concerns related to the application of the criteria and the judgments also in the enhancement reports, these should equally be subject to appeal in line with the standard. During its site-visit the panel further learned that it is not always clear to stakeholders involved how a complaint will be approached and how exactly are responsibilities defined. The Register Committee noted that MusiQuE has an Appeals’ Committee, formed of one standing member and one individual appointed in response to each specific appeal. The panel remarked that the Board of MusiQuE is the decision-making body responsible for endorsing the judgement of the review team and also the body nominating the members of the Appeals’ Committee, which may raise a concern of potential conflict of interest. The Register Committee therefore underlined the panel’s recommendation of reviewing the procedure for appeals in order to guarantee a fair decision making and avoid such potential conflicts of interest. Considering the several above-mentioned issues the Register Committee could not follow the panel’s conclusion of (substantial) compliance but considered that MusiQuE complies only partially with ESG 2.7.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Focused, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Absence of the body responsible for handling complaints (established in renewal)
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee noted that QANU has revised its complaints and appeals procedure and established an independent committee to consider its appeals.The panel noted that institutions can now submit an appeal against all external quality assurance activities of QANU and the decisions are taken by an Appeals Committee, instead of QANU’s director.The panel’s analysis further show that QANU offers the possibility to institutions to express their dissatisfaction about the conduct of the external quality assurance activity carried out by QANU or misbehaviour of people acting on behalf of the agency. The agency has also established different processes in the handling of complaints i.e. if a complaint refers to the behaviour of a staff member of QANU this is processed by the director; if a complaint is about the director of the agency, the complaint is processed by the chair of the Board etc.Having considered the changes put in place by QANU since its last external review, the Register Committee was able to follow the panel’s judgement that QANU now complies with ESG 2.7.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	22/06/2020
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Lack of an independent appeals committee; Clarification of appeals’ procedure
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its previous decision for renewal, the Register Committee flagged for attention the appeals system, as the panel recommended that ACSUCYL should revise its appeals system so that a separate committee handles appeals. The external review panel confirmed in its external evaluation report that ACSUCYL established an independent body, the Guarantees Commission, that is responsible for examining appeals or complaints in areas where the agency is competent. For procedures where the final decision belongs to the University Council or Regional Ministry (i.e. verification/modification, accreditation renewal, evaluation to create, recognize, modify or withdraw university centres), the appeal is considered by the corresponding decision making body. ACSUCYL provides input into the consideration of these cases, but it does not decide. Within ACSUCYL, the request will be sent to the Guarantees Commission, which consults the relevant Assessment Commission, before preparing an answer. If the appeal is granted, ACSUCYL will be requested to review its earlier conclusion. The Register Committee underlined that ACSUCYL’s complaints policy should communicate better that higher education institutions have the possibility to raise matters about the conduct of the process or those carrying it out (i.e. complaints in the understanding of the ESG), even in such procedures where the final decision is taken by other bodies.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	22/06/2020
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Lack of an independent appeals committee
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee noted that appeals procedures are published together with every procedure on the agency’s website, except the independent accreditation at the institutional level. To date AKKORK has only received a complaint, but no appeals. The panel’s analysis show that AKKORK’s Appeals Committee involves members of the International Accreditation Council, the same body that is involved in the accreditation decision-making process in addition to the members of its Supervisory Board. The Register Committee underlined that in such cases the impartiality of the decision making in considering appeals is not ensured. In its further information to the review report, AKKORK stated that its regulation on appeals have been updated and that its new appeals body, appointed by AKKORK’s Supervisory Board, includes members from the agency’s partner organisations. In its additional representation the agency has further provided a link to its revised regulation on appeals. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	22/06/2020
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Lack of an impartial decision making → lack of an independent appeals committee
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that higher education institutions reviewed by AAC-DEVA may file an appeal before the Universities Council in case of verification/modification, accreditation renewal and institutional accreditation. If the claim is accepted, the appeal is sent to AAC-DEVA where a group of experts who have not intervened in the evaluation that led to the unfavourable decision will revise the report. The Committee underlined that AAC-DEVA’s current appeals process does not fully ensure the impartiality of decision making, as the Universities Council is both the body responsible for the accreditation decisions and the resolution of appeals after such procedures. In case of DOCENTIA, IMPLANTA and the accreditation of foreign language skills, the resolution of the appeal is with the same body who issued the initial decision. Thus the impartiality of the decision making is not fully ensured in any of the external QA activities carried out by the agency. In its additional representation the agency explained that according to the Spanish legal framework the agency cannot exclude the University Council in the consideration of the appeals procedure – in the case of verification/modification, accreditation renewal and institutional accreditation. The appeal is assessed by a commission which includes experts that have not intervened in the evaluation, and following their examination, if the appeal is ratified it will be further submitted to the corresponding evaluation body for reevaluation. The Register Committee noted that AAC-DEVA intends to establish an Appeals Committee to consider all appeals related to the evaluation of programmes. The decision of the Appeals Committee will be binding for the DEVA Director. Furthermore, while higher education institutions have been able to state their dissatisfaction with the review process i.e. by filling in an online ‘suggestions form’, AAC-DEVA lacks a formal procedure that explains what form of complaints may be submitted and considered by the agency. In its additional representation the agency stated that it has designed a specific procedure for complaints as part of its quality management system and that it has updated its online form for the submission of such complaints. The Register Committee could verify that a complaints protocol has been developed and that the modified online form allows the submission of various forms of complaints. ”

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	Lack of an independent appeals committee
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that Galician Committee for Reports, Assessment, Certification and Accreditation (CGIACA) is both the body responsible for evaluation, certification and accreditation and also the body responsible for the appeals following these reviews. In order to ensure a fair decision-making, the panel recommends the establishment of an independent committee to review appeals. In its Additional information to the external review report (p. 4) the agency stated that following the CGIACA’s meeting in late autumn, the agency will consider the possible nomination of candidates for an independent appeals board. The Register Committee welcomed the ACSUG’s intention to set up a separate board to handle appeals, but the Committee underlined that such changes are yet implemented and that the nomination of its members and the revised appeal process is yet to be reviewed. The Register Committee was therefore unable to concur with the review panel’s judgment of (substantial) compliance, and concluded that ACSUG complies only partially with ESG 2.7.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Limited scope of complaints procedure and implementation of appeals and complaints procedures still to be assessed
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“While the panel confirmed that CYQAA has in place formal and clearly defined processes for higher education institutions to appeal against its accreditation decision, the panel also pointed out that the process of considering appeals is not independent as it is being handled by the Council of CYQAA. The Register Committee understood that following the amendments to the law, CYQAA would appoint a three-member ad-hoc committee to handle appeals on a case by case basis. In addressing complaints, the analysis of the panel shows that while CYQAA has an established practice for handling complaints there is a ‘tendency to rely mainly on informal communication, and that the arrangements in place do not add up yet to a clearly defined and formal’ procedure. In its additional representation CYQAA stated that its revised appeals’procedure sets out the appointment of a three member Advisory Committee of Experts (ACE) to examine the appeals that have been approved by the Council of CYQAA. Additionally CYQAA has written a formal regulation concerning the withdrawal of the accreditation of an institution, department or program of study offered by the institution. The appeal in these cases is being handled by an Independent ad hoc Advisory Committees. In addressing complaints CYQAA stated that the agency has published its complaints policy on its website and explained that individuals and organisations may issue complains about an accredited institution, department or programme. The Register Committee however noted that the concept of complaints is limited to general issues concerning higher education institutions and that it does not allow the possibility to address complaints related to the conduct of a review or complaints concerning the agency’s own processes. While the Register Committee welcomed the steps taken by the agency to address its shortcomings related to the functioning of the Appeals Committee and the implementation of the Complaints Procedure, the Committee underlined the limited scope of the complaints procedure and that the implementation and functioning of these procedures are yet to be considered by a review panel. Considering these limitations, the Register Committee could not follow the panels judgment and therefore concluded that CYQAA complies only partially with ESG 2.7.”

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	Unclear complaints processes. Inadequate composition of the Appeal Council.
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that the agency’s Appeal Council is composed of 11 members nominated by the Minister. While the panel was satisfied with the process the panel also commented that the short term of their mandate might not be helpful for members to gain a broad overview of the decisions made. The Register Committee further noted that the nomination of the Appeal Council’s members is problematic in terms of agency’s independence from the Ministry (see also under ESG 3.3). According to the panel’s analysis NCEQE’s complaints process are rather vague, and the panel was not convinced that higher education institutions would be aware of the opportunity to complain about a procedural concern. In its letter to EQAR (of 6 June 2019) the agency stated that it has developed a user-friendly booklet on complaints procedure and that institutions may now issue complaints online, via its website. While the Register Committee welcomed the agency’s improvement to its complaints processes, the Committee could not verify the agency’s statements, as this would require a review by an expert panel. The Register Committee further underlined its concerns regarding the composition of the agency’s Appeals’ Council. Considering the above-mentioned concerns, the Committee was unable to concur with the review panel’s judgment of (substantial) compliance, and concluded that NCEQE complies only partially with ESG 2.7.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Clarification whether the agency addressed complaints and appeals within the same procedure
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee noted the agency's argument that there was no requirement for an appeals procedure in its case “as IEP evaluations do not result in decisions”. Based on the analysis of the panel, the Register Committee, however, understood and concurs with the panel that IEP's ‘substantive’ complaints are, in fact, appeals in the ESG terminology: they enable the institution to “questions the formal outcomes of the process” (in this case, the evaluation report), where it can “demonstrate that the outcome is not based on sound evidence” (see guidelines to standard 2.7), which IEP’s complaints policy translates to erroneous judgments, erroneous assumption of non-existent factors as facts, failure in exploring relevant facts, and ignoring or misjudging factual base.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/03/2020
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Implementation of an appeals process and independent appeals body.
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (23/11/2024) Panel (20/02/2020)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel noted in the review report that a clear and transparent formal complaints procedure within ANVUR was not yet fully developed. The panel also noted that there was no specific appeals committee, but that the Governing Board fulfilled both the role of the accreditation body and that of the re-examination body. The Register Committee further noted that the agency has no clear processes in handling complaints (EER, p. 51-52). In light of these concerns and the panel’s conclusion of compliance, the Register Committee sought further clarifications. The panel responded that the spirit of the standard was followed in practice, although the clarity and transparency of appeals processes could be further improved. In its response letter, ANVUR explained that its Governing Board had now approved the establishment of a separate Appeals’ Committee, which will include a member from ANVUR’s Governing Board, one member appointed by the Board of Rectors of Italian Universities and one member from the National Authority for anti-corruption, transparency and public procurement (ANAC).”

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	unclear process for handling complaints
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In order to improve the appeals procedure, the former Ethics Committee became the Ethics and Guarantees Committee, which was composed of members who play an active role within the agency. The review panel noted that the composition of the Committee was limiting its independence. The Register Committee underlined the recommendation of the panel that the Ethics and Guarantees Committee be composed of members who are independent from the agency and the Basque higher education system. In its additional representation, Unibasq stated that the composition of the Committee had been changed. The new Ethics and Guarantees Code, which was approved by Unibasq’s Governing Council, established that the Committee is now composed of experts from outside the Basque University System, who moreover cannot be part of any other Unibasq body or committee. The Register Committee was able to see the new composition on Unibasq’s website. Furthermore, while the panel confirmed that Unibasq has developed a clear appeals processes, it referred to “a more general procedure for the reception and handling of complaints and suggestion”, but did not analyse that in detail. In its additional representation, Unibasq did not comment further on the complaints procedure. Given the unclear process for handling complaints, the Register Committee remained unable to concur with the review panel’s conclusion of compliance, but concluded that Unibasq complies only partially with ESG 2.7.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

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 (23/11/2024)
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