Precedents database

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	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

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

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	25/10/2022
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	Student involvement in decision making bodies
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“ANQA involves students in the review panels, but not in the body

responsible for making decisions on accreditation (i.e. the Accreditation

Council). The Committee highlighted the panel’s recommendation and

found it necessary that the agency improves the involvement of students in

the decision-making process.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	14/03/2022
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	Involvement of stakeholders in governing bodies; Lack of clear policy for separation of EQA and consultancy activities and preventing conflict of interest
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The governing body (i.e. the Managing Board) of the agency does not involve other stakeholders than academics. The agency has not published any policy or statements in regards to the separation of its consultancy activities and preventing conflicts of interest.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	15/10/2021
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	Weak involvement of stakeholders in the governance of the agency
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (28/09/2021)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“AI has no advisory or governing board, nor any other strategical decision making body (hence lacks stakeholder involvement in the governance of the agency).”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	clarification of external QA carried abroad
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (21/05/2019)
RC decision	Compliance

“In its confirmation of eligibility, the Register Committee noted that PKA is expected to also address activities carried out by the agency abroad i.e. in Lithuania. As it was unclear on whether such activities were addressed in the external review of PKA, the Committee asked PKA for further clarifications. PKA explained that the external QA activities carried out in Lithuania only extended to one foreign branch of a Polish higher education institution and that the procedures and criteria used were identical with those applied in the case of national HE providers.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/06/2018
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	Stakeholder involvement in the governance and work of the agency
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“While the panel noted that a broader stakeholder involvement would require a change of the law on higher education and might have further implications for the overall functioning of the agency, the Register Committee underlined that the unbalanced composition of NEAA's governing bodies was already flagged as a matter requiring attention when NEAA was first admitted to the Register in 2009”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	06/12/2018
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	Agency lacks explicit goals and objectives; limited stakeholder involvement i.e. consultations only where specific topics are addressed
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that while NEAQA’s strategy could provide a comprehensive framework for the agency's daily operations, the agency does not have in place mechanisms for effective forward planning and reviewing progress towards its objectives. Considering the involvement of stakeholders, the panel’s findings show that, since its last review, NEAQA has improved the engagement with employer representatives in its quality assurance activities. However, stakeholder involvement is still limited in agency's work given that neither students nor employers are involved in NEAQA’s governance.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/06/2018
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	Involvement of students in agency’s decision making
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (02/06/2018)
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee understood that the reference to “consultative services” in the report in fact referred to so-called “consultative visitations”. These are, however, not consultancy activities, but a step in EAEVE's external quality assurance scheme. […] The Register Committee underlined the panel’s suggestion that EAEVE should involve students in the ECOVE and the appeals panels, even though students do not request membership at the moment.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	Stakeholder involvement
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee flagged in its decision of inclusion the effectiveness of the Accreditation Institution’s activities to engage with its stakeholders.The Committee noted that the involvement of stakeholders is generally ensured trough consultations by the Ministry and the Accreditation Council (Review Report, p. 29), while AI’s only formalised form of stakeholder involvement is related to the thematic analysis of reports. The Committee concurred with the panel’s conclusion that AI should further develop stakeholder involvement in its governance and work in order to meet the agency’s objectives of enhancement and further development of quality assurance.”

Full decision: see agency register entry