Precedents database

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	04/04/2024
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	strategic plan, stakeholder, stakeholders involvement
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“12. The Register Committee noted the concerns raised by the panel that CYQAA’s Strategic Plan (2020-2025) is rather generic, with no specific

activities and clear timeframes. Furthermore, the Committee noted that the panel did not see any evidence of public, annual corporate or activity plan than operationalise the Strategic Plan.

13. The Register Committee understood by the panels analysis, that the agency involves representatives from both public and private universities, students and regulated professions. However, as underlined by the panel, the involvement of private higher education institutions and many public and private colleges and their students is very limited and CYQAA should further widen their engagement in its governance and evaluation processes.

14. Considering the lack of comprehensive and rather generic Strategic Plan and the shortcomings in the involvement of stakeholders from all

higher education institutions, public and private colleges, the Register Committee concurred with the panel and found that CYQAA only partially

complies with ESG 3.1.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	04/04/2024
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	Distinction between ESG aligned and consultancy activities
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“14. In its previous decision for renewal of registration on EQAR (of 11-05-2019), Unibasq was found to be partially compliant with the standard as it did not make a clear distinction between its ESG aligned and consultancy activities (i.e. the evaluation of “títulos propios”). At the time, the agency removed the information regarding the evaluation of “titulos proprios” from its website; the Committee, however, could not verify whether the new method of communication brought clarity for all stakeholders.

15. From the external review report, the Committee has learned that the agency “ has made...efforts to request from higher education institutions [involved in the consultancy activities] not to use misleading information on their websites and has succeeded as far as the panel could determine through an internet search”.

16. The Committee therefore followed the panel’s conclusion and found that the agency now complies with the standard. The Committee, however, shared the panel’s view that the agency could improve the distinction between these two group of activities by creating a separate section on its website where it showcases clear information to the public.

17. For the remaining standards, the Register Committee was able to concur with the review panel's analysis and conclusion without further comments.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/10/2024
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	student in governance, distintion between activities
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“44. MFHEA has a mission statement which is publicly available and included in the strategic plan. As outlined by the panel, however, the strategic plan lacks a detailed outline of clear and explicit goals.

45. The Committee learned from the panel’s analysis that MFHEA did not ensure a clear distinction between its external quality assurance activities in the field of higher education and its other fields of work. In its statement on the report, the agency explained in order to enable a clear distinction

between its activities, it plans to initiate legislative changes. These changes, however, were either planned to happen later in 2024 or in 2025.

46. The Register Committee also learned from the report that MFHEA involves external stakeholders from different sectors in its governance and

work, e.g., members of the Board have different backgrounds in higher education. The Committee, however, noted that students are not involved in

the work of the governance body (or governance), i.e., the Board nor in its accreditation body, i.e., the Quality Assurance Committee (QAC). The Register Committee understood that in order to ensure better involvement of stakeholders, including students, in its governance structures, MFHEA

has foreseen legislative changes.

47. For the Committee it was unclear which particular changes will take place in order to address the lack of clear distinction between higher education and non-higher education activities and the lack of student involvement in the governance and work of the agency (in the Board and the

QAC), and whether the planned legislative changes have been adopted yet

48. In its additional representation, the agency informed that the clear distinction between MFHEA’s external quality assurance activities in higher

education and its other fields of work, will be ensured through structural changes in its organisational structure; the agency plans to set two units

tackling further and higher education separately.as of January

2025. Furthermore, the agency informed that legal provisions were amended to

include student representatives in the Quality Assurance Committee and the MFHEA Board and that students are now represented in both of them.

49. The Register Committee noted and welcomed the planned changes aiming to ensure clear distinction between its external quality assurance

activities in the field of higher education and its other fields of work and the involvement of students in the Board and the Quality Assurance Committee.

50. However, given the concerns raised above and that relevant parts of the presented actions are yet to be fully translated into the daily work of the

agency, they remain to be reviewed by an external review panel. Therefore, the Committee could not concur with the panel and found that the agency complies only partially with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2024
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	Student involvement in governance
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“17. In its last decision for renewal of registration on EQAR (of 2019-11-05), evalag was found to be partially compliant with the standard as it had no clear overarching strategy, bringing together planning, budgeting and risk assessment. Furthermore, the main decision-making body, the Foundation Board, did not included a student member.

18. From the review report and the panel’s analysis the Register Committee noted that the main shortcomings identified in the previous decision were only minimally improved i.e., the statutory changes in order to involve student member in the Foundation Board, limits their involvement only in specific cases ( “If international standards in the field of study and teaching are dealt with, a student member may be called upon as a permanent or temporary, non-voting guest.”)

19. Furthermore, the Committee understood that evalag, at the time of the review, worked on a new overarching strategy bringing together planning, budgeting and risk assessment, however this strategy was to be approved only in July 2024.

20. Considering the minimal improvements made since the last decision, the Register Committee could not follow the panel’s judgement of compliance and found that evalag complies only partially with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	14/03/2025
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	Lack of stakeholder involvement in governance bodies
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“23. The Register Committee learned from the review report that the Governing Board of ANVUR consists exclusively of university professors, while no other stakeholders were involved in the governance of the agency.

24. In its additional representation, ANVUR explained that their regulations do not prevent any expert, regardless of which stakeholder group they belong to, from being a member of the Governing Board. In the Register Committee’s view, however, participation in the Governing Board is challenging, especially for students, due to the full-time character of the role, even though there are different governance arrangements and divisions of governance tasks which would enable broader stakeholder involvement. (e.g. by reducing the expected working hours for some stakeholder groups).

25. ANVUR further argued that stakeholders are involved in other bodies of the agency, such as the Advisory Board, leading to ANVUR’s governance being informed by stakeholders. While the Register Committee found the involvement of stakeholders in the work of the Advisory Board to be a positive practice, it noted that this does not fulfil the requirements of the standard which implies stakeholders’ involvement in strategic decision-making (governance), and not merely in the advisory processes of the agency.

26. Considering lack of stakeholder involvement, beyond the university academic staff, in ANVUR’s governance, the Register Committee was unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion and found that ANVUR only partially complies with ESG 3.1.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/11/2024
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	Stakeholder involvement in governance
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“15. The Register Committee learned that the governing body of AQUIB (i.e., the Board of Directors), is composed exclusively of representatives of the University of the Balearic Islands (UIB) and the regional government. The Board does not include student members nor other stakeholders.

16. The Register Committee learned that AQUIB has prepared a draft of the new Statutes which, in the review panel’s view, would ensure a more representative composition of the Board of Directors. However, these Statutes are not yet in force at the time of the review.

17. Considering lack of stakeholder involvement in AQUIB’s governance, the Register Committee was unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion of compliance and found that AQUIB only partially complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/11/2024
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	stakeholders invovlement
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“13. In its last decision, the Register Committee found the agency to be partially compliant due to the lack of stakeholders involvement on governance level and its lack of strategic planning.

14. The Register Committee learned from the panel’s analysis that the agency has addressed the issues raised in the previous review. The Committee noted that ACCUA has involved students and other stakeholder as members of the Governing Council of the agency. Furthermore, the Committee noted that ACCUA adopted an Initial Action Plan which is well-conceived to carry forwards the agency's mission and vision.

15. Following the improvements towards ESG compliance undertaken by the agency, the Register Committee was able to follow the panel’s conclusion that the agency complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	3.2 Official status
Keywords	agency’s formal recognition
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee noted that IEP itself does not have separate legal personality and therefore it is represented by EUA in all legal and contractual matters. The Committee acknowledged that the recognition of IEP as a quality assurance agency by public authorities is demonstrated by the numerous contracts that IEP (represented by EUA) signed with national authorities for conducting evaluations, or by the selection of IEP as an evaluating body through a public procurement procedure. [...] The Register Committee interprets the requirement of formal recognition in a broad sense and therefore concurred with the panel's conclusion that IEP complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/03/2023
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Infringement of the organizational independence
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Committee could not verify how the agency ensures its independence from its founder and found the distribution of power among stakeholders in the governing of the agency unequal. The Committee noted that the current arrangements include the possibility of

the founder or the Director General exercising their controlling stake in several regards, causing a substantial risk of an infringement on the

independence of the agency (see also interpretation 18).”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	18/03/2021
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Organizational independence; Lack of formal mechanisms for tackling conflict of interest
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (15/03/2021)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“Concerns about the Government's control of all major appointments remain. In particular, the way in which the Director General is selected has not been made fully transparent and it remained unclear whether the involvement of stakeholders in appointing the Advisory Board is secured in official documents. Moreover, the potential conflict of interest that the Director General could come across in their daily operations does not seem to be fully addressed through formal means by the agency.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	22/06/2020
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Organisational independence; Appointment of the members by minister
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In terms of organisational independence, the evidence presented by the panel shows that members of the Governing Board are appointed by the regional minister responsible for universities and that the Governing Board has a strong representation of its regional Government, including the Chairperson. The agency is largely dependent on the regional Government also for the approvals and hiring of new staff and the annual approval of its budget. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/09/2018
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Organisational independence
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee noted that since its last evaluation, ANECA has strengthened its independence i.e. becoming an autonomous public body, ensuring a more balanced representations in its Governing Council, appointing of its own director and operating with full fiscal autonomy. The Register Committee further noted that “the operation of ANECA’s policies and procedures surrounding the design, implementation and reporting on all the evaluation processes takes place in a fully independent and autonomous manner” (Review report, p. 26).”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	operational independence
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (24/04/2025)
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee sought and received clarification from the panel as regards ANQA's independence in defining its own procedures and methods. The Committee appreciated the panel's explanation as to how ANQA developed its Manual independently.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	organisational and operational independence
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The review panel was satisfied that the 2014 decree on AEQES and the current organisational status and structure sufficiently demonstrate and safeguard AEQES independence. In particular, AEQES gained the ability to hire staff from its own budget, independently of the Ministry”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Focused, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/03/2023
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Infringement of the operational independence
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“Dependency of the agency on staff paid by higher education institutions”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	30/06/2023
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Overlapping responsibilities between different bodies/ Lack of diversity
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“34. The panel raised issues related to the high involvement of representatives of accredited institutions, amplified by the small size of the chiropractic community, as well as the overlapping responsibilities between different agency bodies. In particular, the panel regarded critically the ex-officio mutual memberships of the Executive Committee and QAAC chairperson in the respective other committee, the involvement of both bodies in the QA process and the close involvement of the QAAC in pre-screening self-evaluation reports.

35. In light of these concerns, the Register Committee 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	13/10/2023
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Operational independence; Independence of formal outcomes
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Committee learned that both the president and the vice president

of KAZSEE have voting rights in the two bodies in which they are members

of, i.e. the Accreditation Council and the Supervisory Board. In panel’s view

the “mixture of roles [of the President and the vice President] could make

the [decision making] system vulnerable”. The Committee could follow panel’s reasoning that the current

arrangements could pose threat for the operational independence and the

independence of formal outcomes.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/11/2024
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	High level of involvement of the Government of Georgia in the selection of candidates for several leadership and managerial positions in the agency
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (28/05/2024)
RC decision	Non-compliance

“The Register Committee found that the agency remains having weak

organisational independence as the government persists having strong involvement in the appointment of several NCEQE’s bodies. The Committee found that further panel insight should asses whether the Government’s significant involvement in the agency’s operations affects the notable staff overturn (i.e. the operational independence) and the final conclusions of the accreditation decisions (i.e. the independence of formal outcomes).”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	25/10/2022
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	involvement of ministry in accreditation of HEIs in exile
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“15. The review panel noted some concerns about the process of ex-post accreditation of higher education institutions in exile, especially given the direct involvement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the evaluation, i.e. certain standards being assessed by the Ministry instead of the panel of experts.

16. The Register Committee considered that the rationale might lie in the obvious political and diplomatic dimensions involved and that this might justify distributed responsibilities in principle. The Committee, however, considered that it must be transparent to the public what is an assessment made by SKVC and its independent expert panels, and what part of the assessment is made by the Ministry, potentially taking into account political considerations. The Committee recommends that SKVC and the Ministry explore how to disentangle political/diplomatic considerations and quality assessments fully, e.g. by having the Ministry make a separate assessment and decision either preceding SKVC's quality assessment, or following a decision by SKVC.

17. Given the rare occurrence of these procedures and the brief analysis by the panel on the matter, the Register Committee was unable to draw a definitive conclusion; the independence and transparency in these procedures should thus receive close attention in SKVC's next review.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	25/10/2022
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	composition of governing bodies; independence of the appeals process; financial independence
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its previous decision the Register Committee underlined the concerns of the panel with regard to the overlap in the composition of the agency’s different bodies. The review panel found that AQU has separated the membership of its strategic and oversight bodies from its specific commissions and review panels. The Register Committee welcomed these changes, including the appointment of two non-local members to the Appeals Committee, but noted that the Chair of the Appeals Committee is a member of the Governing Board. While the role of the members in the Governing Board is limited to the strategic decision-making and management of the organisation, the Register Committee found that the involvement of a representative of the Board (in particular as a Chair) in the Appeals Committee might put undue pressure in the discussion and decision-making of the Appeals Committee. The Register Committee nevertheless agreed that the Appeals Committee was sufficiently independent given that the AQU’s Governing Board does not adopt the reports or decisions that are being appealed. The Register Committee further noted that AQU’s funding comes primarily from the Government of Catalonia (about 90% of the agency’s budget) and is allocated on an annual basis. The Committee welcomed AQU’s plans to move to a four-year contract with the Government of Catalonia, which could further improve its operational independence. Considered the steps taken to separate the membership of the agency’s strategic and oversight bodies, the Register Committee could follow the panel’s conclusion that AQU now complies with the standard ESG 3.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry