Precedents database
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – CYQAA – Partial compliance (2024) appeals procedure, appeals committee
CYQAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 04/04/2024 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords appeals procedure, appeals committee Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “7. In the decision on the for inclusion of CYQAA on the register (of 2019-11- 05), the Register Committee raised concerns regarding the shortcomings of the appeal procedure regarding the independence of the processes and the lack of clearly defined and formal complaints procedure.
8. From the external review report, the Register Committee learned that the Complains Policy is well established and higher education institutions have already used the possibility to submit a complaint (18 until the time of the external review).
9. The Register Committee further learned that CYQAA has revised its Appeals Procedure and now sets Advisory Committee of Experts (ACE) - groups of experts that examine and give opinion on the grounds for appeals to CYQAA’s Council. Despite the updated policy, the Council still holds the powers to make the final decision whether there are grounds for an appeal and can dismiss or uphold the appeal.
10. Furthermore, the Committee noted that the current Appeal Procedure is not entirely clear as it may suggest that an ACE is appointed for each appeal that is allowed for consideration by the Council, whereas in practice it is set only when the Council proposes to reject an appeal and needs advice from external experts.
11. The Register Committee welcomed (changes made related to the complaints procedure) and found the earlier concerns related to the complaints procedure addressed. The Committee, however, found that CYQAA is yet to demonstrate an independent functioning of the Appeals Procedure, where the final decision is not with CYQAA’s Council. Having in mind the shortcomings related to the Appeals Procedure, the Register Committee concurred with the panel conclusion that CYQAA only partially complies with ESG 2.7.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – IQAA – Partial compliance (2022) Publication of reports
IQAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 25/10/2022 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of reports Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee learned that IQAA now publishes in full the decisions from institutional and programme accreditations, including the
negative ones. Even though the bulk of reports is public, this is not the case for all of them - the reports from the initial accreditation and the post-accreditation monitoring are still not published.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – FIBAA – Compliance (2022) publication of all reports
FIBAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 07/02/2022 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords publication of all reports Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “14. In its last decision, the Register Committee noted that a number of programme accreditation reports have not been published by FIBAA and concluded that the agency at that time complied only partially with ESG 2.6. In response to the recommendation made in the previous review, the Register Committee learned that FIBAA is now publishing both the positive and negative reports on accreditation and certification processes from national as well as international activities, on its website.
15. The Register Committee therefore agreed with the panel’s conclusion, that FIBAA complies with standard 2.6.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – ACQUIN – Compliance (2021) Consistency in the content and publication of the reports
ACQUIN
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/12/2021 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Consistency in the content and publication of the reports Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The agency publishes its reports on the website. The panel noted that, however, the structure of the reports and their publishing was not always consistent and that for some procedures the reports included summary information only. In their response to the review report, the agency explained that it now uses a template provided by GAC which enables a better structured and
standardised reporting. The agency is currently updating its database and
tackling the technical issues leading to an inconsistent report publishing. The Register Committee found that the agency has taken concrete
steps to address the issues related to the consistent drafting and publishing of its reports”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – ZEvA – Compliance (2022) responsibility to publish reports also when not submitted to GAC
ZEvA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 14/03/2022 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords responsibility to publish reports also when not submitted to GAC Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “23. The Register Committee concurred with the panel's conclusion that ZEvA complies with the standard; the Committee further underlined that ZEvA is responsible to ensure that all reports are ultimately published on its own website and on DEQAR, including those that are never submitted to GAC by the institution under review.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – ACSUCYL – Compliance (2020) publication of negative reports
ACSUCYL
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords publication of negative reports Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (17/03/2025)
RC decision Compliance “While ACSUCYL publishes the results of its external evaluations, the Register Committee was unclear on whether the agency also makes public the assessment reports with a negative result. The Register Committee therefore sought further clarification from the panel. In its clarification response, the panel stated that according to ACSUCYL’s handbook, the assessment reports are published once the University Council, the body responsible for taking the formal decision concerning verification and modification of curricula takes its decision. The panel added that it does not have any indication to show that negative reports of this activity are not published (in case a decision is taken).”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – AKKORK – Partial compliance (2020) Publication of all reports
AKKORK
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of all reports Panel conclusion Non-compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “In its previous decision of inclusion, the Register Committee flagged AKKORK’s practice of ensuring the consistent publication of all external evaluation reports. In its additional information and additional representation to the review report the agency claimed that all its review reports and decisions were now published on its website, including the reports from its professional-public accreditation activity. The Register Committee could verify that with a few exceptions all of these reports are now published by the agency on its website i.e. links included under the Russian version of its agency’s website under Register of programmes. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – evalag – Compliance (2019) Publication of negative reports
evalag
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 05/11/2019 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of negative reports Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “When evalag’s registration was last renewed it was flagged for attention whether evalag has moved to publish reports where the accreditation decision was negative. The review panel observed that evalag has had no negative decisions so far. The panel nevertheless confirmed that evalag’s clear policy is to publish all reports regardless of the outcome; the panel had no doubts that a negative report will be published. The Register Committee therefore concluded that the flag has been addressed.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – A3ES – Compliance (2019) readability and accessibility of reports
A3ES
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 05/11/2019 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords readability and accessibility of reports Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In the previous decision for inclusion, the Register Committee flagged for attention the readability and accessibility of reports. Based on the review report the Register Committee noted that the agency has made good efforts to address the issue.The Register Committee therefore considered that the flag has been addressed and concurred with the panel’s conclusion that A3ES complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – AHPGS – Compliance (2020) not all reports published in the past
AHPGS
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 16/03/2020 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords not all reports published in the past Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “31. When AHPGS' registration was last renewed, the Register Committee flagged for attention whether AHPGS’ policy of publishing full reports for all reviews has been implemented consistently.
32. The review report analysed and concluded that AHPGS has consistently published full reports from all of its activities. The Register Committee therefore considered that the flag has been addressed and concurred with the conclusion that AHPGS complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – SQAA – Partial compliance (2019) publication of negative reports
SQAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/04/2019 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords publication of negative reports Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “Review panel further noted that reports from initial accreditation procedures with a negative outcome are not published and rightly stated that the publication of all reports is required by the ESG, in order to ensure full transparency. While SQAA's statement on the report held that all “reports (with the positive and negative outcomes)” were now accessible, it was not clear whether SQAA officially changed its policy to that effect. The Committee was unable to verify whether reports on initial accreditation procedures with a negative outcome were now published.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – NEAA – Partial compliance (2018) Publication of full reports
NEAA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/06/2018 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of full reports Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (30/05/2018)
RC decision Partial compliance “The review panel noted that the expert groups' (EG) reports were “reflected” in the standing committee (SC) reports, but were not published as such. The panel clarified that the practice reflected NEAA's “division of labour”, that there was no substantial difference between the EG and SC reports, and that the SC was not able to include in its report “other findings than those of the EG”. […]In its statement on the review report, NEAA noted that it was now publishing the full EG reports. This could, however, not be verified by the Register Committee as the reports are only available on the Bulgarian version of NEAA's website.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – QAA – Compliance (2019) publication of reports and publication of the experts involved
QAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 15/03/2019 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords publication of reports and publication of the experts involved Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The publication of review reports regarding Degree-Awarding Powers (DAP) was flagged for attention when QAA was admitted to the Register. The Register Committee welcomed that regulations were changed to the effect that such reports are now published [...] the Register Committee noted that the composition of the panels for TNE review is not mentioned in the published report. The Committee therefore drew attention to the guidelines to ESG 2.6, which suggest that the members of the review panel should be listed in the review report.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – SKVC – Compliance (2017) Publication of reports
SKVC
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 16/11/2017 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of reports Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its decision of inclusion, the Register Committee flagged the publication of reports corresponding to applications by new programmes and new licensing requests. The panel’s finding show that the evaluation reports for programme and institutional evaluations are published and accessible on the SKVC website, including the accreditation decisions (p. 40).”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – FIBAA – Partial compliance (2017) Inconsistency in preparation of reports; publication of programme accreditation reports
FIBAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Inconsistency in preparation of reports; publication of programme accreditation reports Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The panel noted that the practice of sending review reports to higher education institutions for approval after decisions have been made should be reconsidered as this is not standard practice. To ensure consistency in the preparation of reports, the panel underlined the need for clearer manuals. The panel also referred to the results of an analysis carried out by the Accreditation Council, which showed that a number of programme accreditation reports have not been published by FIBAA. The Register Committee noted the intention of FIBAA to improve its practice of publishing reports and considered that improvements have not yet been externally reviewed.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – AI – Compliance (2016) readibility and usefulness of reports
AI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords readibility and usefulness of reports Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its decision of inclusion the Register Committee flagged the readability and usefulness of accreditation reports for students and general audiences.The review panel noted that the agency still needs to improve the readability of reports and while the structure and format of AI reports are in general clear and concise they mostly serve the purpose of the accreditation decision.While the agency is compliant in terms of accessibility and publication of reports, the Register Committee noted that the readability of reports is limited to a specialised audience. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – ZEvA – Compliance (2016) Publication of reports
ZEvA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of reports Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “Having been able to verify the publication of reports for certification and audit procedures the Register Committee was however unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion of partial compliance and concluded that ZEvA is in fact compliant with ESG 2.6.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – CAAAE – Partial compliance (2023) Publication of reports
CAAAE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/10/2023 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of reports Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “At the time of the site visit the
agency’s website was under development, and the access to all reports was
not possible. The Committee noted that the website was still not upgraded
and fully functional at the time of taking the decision - almost one year after
the panel’s visit. This circumstance prevented the Committee from verifying
whether all the reports are publicly available. The Committee
concurred with panel’s conclusion of partial compliance.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – A3ES – Partial compliance (2024) Publication of negative reports and decisions
A3ES
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 02/07/2024 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of negative reports and decisions Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “13. The Register Committee learned from the analysis by the panel that A3ES does not publish negative reports and decisions on the assessment of new study programmes (NCE).
14. Given the lack of transparency by not publishing negative reports and decisions for all procedures the Register Committee concurred with the panel that A3ES only partially complies with ESG 2.6.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – AQ Austria – Compliance (2024) Publication of reports
AQ Austria
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 02/07/2024 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of reports Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “8. From the report, the Register Committee learned that in case of the activities leading to an accreditation of German higher education institutions, there is a (theoretical) possibility that an institution may not forward the report to the German Accreditation Council (GAC); hence the report may not be published.
9. The Register Committee concurred with panel’s conclusion and found the agency compliant with the standard. It, however, underlined panel’s recommendation that the agency could include a publishing clause in the contract with the higher education institution in case the report to the German Accreditation Council is not forwarded.”
Full decision: see agency register entry