Precedents database

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Lack of experts from the field; organisational and operational independence
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“Due to the small chiropractic community, the review team noted that experts from the field may lack independence. While this issue was highlighted in ECCE’s previous external review, the panel noted that the situation remained unchanged. The panel further stated that the move of experts and committee members within ECCE’s different organisational structures (panel experts, the Commission on Accreditation, Quality Assurance Committee, Executive) may pose questions to the effective independence of the agency. In its additional representation the agency stated that two additional experts from outside the chiropractic field were nominated and that the position of ‘Evaluation Team Secretary’ was replaced with newly appointed panel members. The agency also added that a list of conditions was prepared to be integrated as part of its conflict of interest statement. The Register Committee acknowledged the intention of ECCE to eliminate possible conflict of interest within its accreditation procedures and to improve its organisational and operational independence. Based on the evidence provided, the Committee could not yet verify that ECCE has addressed the earlier mentioned concerns (no clear explanation of conflict of interest for members of CoA, QAC or the Executive) and the nomination of two non-chiropractic experts is not yet enacted, since it has to be voted on at the General Meeting of ECCE in November.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Organisational independence
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (24/04/2025)
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee noted that the Board of the agency is chaired by the regional minister who is also responsible for the appointment of the Director of the organisation (following consultation with the Board of Directors).Referring to the independence of the Board the panel stated that while the Minister is the chair of this decision-making body there was no evidence of any political interference over the agency’s activities (Review Report, p.18). The Register Committee was unclear on the evidence supporting the conclusion of the panel and has therefore asked the panel to elaborate on the policies and processes which the panel considered to satisfy itself of the Board’s independence.In its clarification response (of 20/11/2016) the panel stated that the code of ethics extends also to the Board members, but that there were no specific mentions on this during the site visit. The panel satisfied itself on the separation of roles between the Board and technical committees and commented that it has been a positive step to guarantee the independence of the agency’s activities. The members of the technical committees interviewed by the panel reported that they had no political interference in their work. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Organisational and operational independence
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee noted that the review panel confirmed the organisational independence of SAR and AAQ in practice, despite a residual potential influence by the agency’s sponsors and clients, which was described as a “risk to the agency’s independence that should not be underestimated” (p. 48-49).While the review panel considered that the concrete organisation of the selection procedure of SAR members guarded against any possibility that one side may exert a particular influence, the review panel noted that the selection procedure was not codified in any official document. Consequently, the panel recommended to specify the selection procedures and criteria in a binding document.The review panel further noted that SAR applies equivalent principles of conduct than AAQ, but that this was not sufficiently transparent at the present. The panel advised SAR to set down these principles in its own code of conduct or, for example, to adopt AAQ’s existing code of conduct, and to ultimately publish its code of conduct.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/03/2023
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	regional government representation, Governing Board, Technical Committee
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“23. In regards to organisational independence, the Register Committee noted that the Governing Board, the body responsible for the approval of accreditation methodologies and criteria, has a strong regional government representation, with one third of the members nominated by the regional ministry The Committee further noted that the regional ministry is also responsible in appointing the president and vice-president of the Governing Board.

24. The Committee further noted that the regional government directly appoints the Director of the agency. The Committee found this problematic given the Director’s responsibility in ensuring the independent operations of the agency and in chairing all of the agency’s Technical Committees for ex-post accreditation of study programmes.

25. The Committee further noted that the agency is limited in its recruitment processes as this responsibility lies with the regional government (review report, p. 27).

26. Given the close link to the regional government, the Committee shares the panel’s view that ACCUEE should (in consultation with the regional Government) amend the current processes regarding the appointment of the Director as well as the legal frameworks definition on the composition and the proportion of governmental members in the Governing Board and ensure the recruitment processes are under the competency of the agency.

27. The Register Committee welcomed ACCUEE’s plans for addressing the panel’s concerns, but the Committee underlined that these changes are yet to be fully enacted. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel that ACCUEE only partially complies with ESG 3.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Focused, coordinated by ASIIN
Decision of	30/06/2023
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Appointment process for accreditation body
Panel conclusion	Non-compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“34. The Register Committee considered ECTE partially compliant with the standards 3.3 (see decision of 2022-06-28), due to concerns with regard to ECTE’s structure, the composition and overlapping functions of the ECTE Council and the possible conflict of interest in the role of some staff members; while steps to resolve this were taken, these had not been analysed by an external review panel.

35. The Register Committee took note that the new governance structure of ECTE separates the governance role of the Council from the accreditation decision-making role of the Accreditation Commission (AC) and that members of the committee hold no other positions within ECTE. The Committee further noted that ECTE has put additional measures in place to remove all staff representation from the Accreditation Commission.

36. The Committee however maintained that the practice whereby the Accreditation Commission nominates candidates for the same body is problematic in terms of ensuring the agency’s operational independence. Even if the candidates are nominated by the Board, the Register Committee found this approach may lead to conflict of interest scenarios and can affect the agency’s operational independent and fair selection process.

37. The Register Committee also found the appointment period of the AC confusing and ill-designed as it did not provide a limited term or a clear period for the mandate of the Commission i.e. ‘members of the Accreditation Commission are appointed by the Board for a period of two-four years, re-appointments are possible.

38. Given the above mentioned issues, the Register Committee found ECTE to be partially compliant with the standard as established previously.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	04/04/2024
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	organisational independence, minstry,
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (04/10/2023)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“27. In its decision of the Substantive change report decision (of 28-06-2022) the Register Committee concluded that the dismissal of the President casts serious doubts on whether PKA remains able to “act autonomously” and to assume “full responsibility for [its] operations”, as required by ESG standard 3.3.

28. The Register Committee considered that the law and regulations on PKA provided insufficient safeguards against an infringement on the agency's independence by allowing for such a decision to be taken discretionary by the Minister. The Committee found that its earlier conclusion that PKA complies with ESG 3.3 might have been flawed, and based on a positive external review report that did not allay such concerns.

29. In its current review the panel confirmed the concerns of the Register Committee i.e., the panel “could not gauge the extent to which the looming possibility of dismissal without reason may affect the behaviour and performance of the President…”. The panel also noted that there are no clear rules and procedures for the dismissal of PKA’s President, thus the Minister can continue to use discretionary power to dismiss the President of PKA.

30. Following the review panel’s recommendation, the President of PKA submitted a letter, dated August 2, 2023, to the Minister of Education and Science, articulating the recommendations delineated in the ENQA’s review report. In its response letter (Annex 1 of Statement), the Minister showed readiness for a discussion that would determine the criteria for dismissing the PKA President.

31. The Register Committee considered that the Minister was willing to recommend a change in the Law and that would remove the question mark over the independence of PKA (as noted in the Review Report and PKA’s Statement to the Review Report). The Committee nevertheless found that since its Change Report (of 2022-06-28) and the review panel’s review report of June 2023, no change or new evidence in the form of a policy, protocol, procedure or similar, specifying reasons/rationale for the dismissal of the President regulating the Minister’s discretionary power was developed and adopted.

32. The Committee further noted existing possible conflict of interest in PKA’s decision making bodies (see further under ESG 3.6), which raises concerns related to the integrity and independence of the agency’s formal outcomes.

33. The Register Committee finds the above issues of significance given the powers conferred in the position of the PKA’s President (expressed mainly in article 7, 8, 9 & 11a of PKA Statutes) and the controlling stake laid in the hands of the Minister, who has already employed its discretionary power to dismiss the President of PKA at any point (see Change Report Decision of 2022-10-25).

34. In its additional representation, the agency provided a declaration from the new Minister of Science of Poland, where he shows willingness to initiate an amendment on the provisions of the Act of Higher Education and Science in order to limit the Minister’s powers and remove their right to dismiss the President of PKA. Furthermore, the declaration states that the proposed amendment it would empower PKA to be responsible for the dismissal of the President.

35. The declaration of the Minister also informed the Register Committee, that until the legislative framework is changed, he shall introduce an internal procedure in case the President needs to be dismissed, in order to eliminate any further doubts of the Register Committee.

36. The Register Committee welcomed the proposed changes by PKA and the Polish Ministry of Science. Nevertheless, the presented changes have not been implemented in practice yet and at the moment are promises that have yet to be implemented. Therefore, once adopted it remains to be considered and reviewed by an external review panel to determine whether the changes have been properly implemented.

37. The Register Committee therefore concurs with the panel that PKA complies only partially with ESG 3.3. The agency is expected to submit a Substantive Change Report informing the Register Committee once the changes have been made.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	12/12/2023
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	ministry involvement, organisational independence
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“20. The Register Committee noted the panel’s analysis that the members of the Executive Board, of the Board of Appeal, the agency’s auditor and the Head of Office are all appointed by the Ministry (following a public selection procedure).

21. The Committee further noted the panel’s concerns regarding a high involvement of the minister in oversight of the agency i.e, in appointing the Chair of the Executive Board, in maintaining authority to dismiss the Chair and all members of the Executive Board (if there are any infringements of legislation or internal rules of the agency).

22. Taking into consideration the panel’s analysis, the Register Committee expressed its concern that the organisational independence of the agency is constrained by its close link and dependency on the Ministry. The Committee underlined the panel’s recommendation to ensure that the agency becomes fully independent and is able to act autonomously without any influence from the Ministry or other authorities. The Register Committee concurred with the panel that SAAHE complies only partially with ESG 3.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	12/12/2023
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	operational independence, decision-making
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“8. In its last decision, the Register Committee noted the strong role the German Bishops’ Conference (DBK) plays in the governance of the agency.

9. Despite the changes made by the agency to further its operational independence, the Register Committee noted that DBK maintains a significant role in the organisational structure of AKAST.

10. The Committee underlined the possible influence that may be exerted by the DBK Episcopal Commissioner in the decision making of the Accreditation Committee. Although the Episcopal Commissioner is present in the Accreditation Committee (AC) of the agency in an advisory capacity, there is still the possibility of undue influence considering the fact that the Episcopal Commissioner still issues a separate consent impacting the programme.

11. Furthermore as noted by the panel, it also seems possible for the episcopal commissioner to express, even unintentionally, a preliminary opinion on particular study programmes, not necessarily based on the findings of the expert panel during the AC meeting.

12. The Committee noted the concentration of power in one place, i.e., the current Chairperson of the Executive Board of AKAST holds the position of Chair of the Accreditation Committee and Chair of the Advisory Board of AKAST. Furthermore, the DBK nominates the Chairperson of the Executive Board.

13. Considering the strong influence of one main stakeholder in the running of the agency, the Register Committee underlined the risk to the agency’s operational independence, as well as to its independent decision-making. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel’s view that AKAST complies only partially with ESG 3.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	04/04/2024
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Organisational independence
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“12. In the previous renewal decision of IEP’s registration, the Register Committee noted that the agency’s organisational independence still continued to be compelled by the close link with the EUA.

13. The Register Committee understood that IEP has taken further steps to address the flagged issues raised in the previous decision. The Committee notes the panel’s analysis and the conclusion that while the EUA is providing resources to IEP, it does not have any role in the decision making processes within the IEP. Furthermore, the Committee notes that in order to better distinguish between EUA and the separate activities undertaken by the IEP, the agency has developed a new website and a distinguishable new corporate identity.

14. Furthermore, the Register Committee took note of the agency’s revised Terms of Reference in order to show the Steering Committee’s full ownership of the development and operation of the IEP.

15. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel's conclusion that IEP complies with the standard. The Committee, however, shared the panel’s view that the agency should make publicly visible the IEP Terms of Reference and other official documents that state the organisational independence of IEP from EUA.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	04/04/2024
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	operational independence, methodologies
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“15. In the decision for inclusion of CYQAA on EQAR (of 2019-11-05), the Committee raised concerns regarding the shortcomings related to the operational independence of CYQAA and the close interlinkage between the agency and the responsible ministry.

16. Despite some progress being made by consultation with key stakeholders on the appointment of Council members and the Minister, the Register Committee noted that the Council members are still appointed by the Council of Ministers, upon recommendation by the Minister responsible for higher education.

17. The Register Committee took note of the panel’s concerns regarding the operational independence of the agency, The Committee understood that CYQAA cannot hire its own staff and is fully relying on secondments from the central Government and the Ministry of Education, Sport and Youth.

18. The Register Committee further noted, as underlined by the panel, that despite being fully independent in defining its evaluation methodologies, CYQAA is still challenged by the limits set in the provisions of the national legislation regarding engaging stakeholders in the development of methodologies (see issue raised under ESG 2.2 in the external review report).

19. Following the panel’s analysis, the Register Committee expressed its concerns that the operational independence of CYQAA remains constrained by the close link and dependence on the Ministry of Education, Sport and Youth regarding the appointment of the Council members, hiring of staff and engaging stakeholders in the development of methodologies. Therefore, the Register Committee concurred with the panel conclusion, and found that CYQAA remains to be partially compliant with ESG 3.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/10/2024
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	government involvement, organisational independence
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“51. The Register Committee learned from the report that the members of the MFHEA Board are all nominated by the Minister responsible for

education and appointed by the Prime Minister of Malta. The Prime Minister also nominates the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Board, who undergo parliamentary scrutiny before being officially appointed. Furthermore, the dismissal and resignation of the Board members could be

only done by or via the Prime Minister.

52. Following the panel’s analysis, the Register Committee expressed its concerns that the organisational independence of the agency is constrained by its strong link and dependency on the government. This is reinforced by the small size of the higher education system.

53. The Quality Assurance Committee (QAC) of MFHEA is the body responsible for decision making on external quality assurance of further and

higher educational institutions. The MFHEA Board, on the other hand, is responsible for endorsement of the evaluation decisions taken by the QAC.

The panel noted inconsistencies regarding what accreditation procedures and which decisions are being endorsed by the Board. Further, as noted by the panel, the participation of the head of QAC, a body appointed by the Board, in the endorsement of QAC’s decisions as a Board member could create internal conflict of interest.

54. In its additional representation, the agency stated that “There are several layers to ensure the independence and suitability of the members of

the Board. These are nominated by the Minister for Education, however they are appointed by the Prime Minister and the Chairperson needs to be

approved by the Public Appointments Committee which is a Parliamentary committee made up of members from both sides of the House (Parliament) which conducts Parliamentary Scrutiny of the nominee. The law also lists the eligibility criteria for Board members, thus ensuring the objective suitability of person nominated by the Minister and appointed by the Prime Minister.”

55. Furthermore, the agency clarified that the current chairperson of the newly appointed QAC has not been appointed as a member of the Board and that the process for the required legislative changes to reflect this distinction are currently underway.

56. The Register Committee considered the additional representation and welcomed the distinction between the two bodies by excluding the

chairperson of the QAC in the Board. The Committee found that, however, this practice is yet to be codified as to ensure continuous prevention of

conflict of interest within the accreditation process. Furthermore, the committee maintains its concerns raised by the panel on the inconsistencies

regarding what accreditation procedures and which decisions are being endorsed by the Board.

57. Finally, the Committee maintains its concerns raised above about how the organisational independence of the agency is constrained by its strong link and dependency on the government.

58. 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	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	14/03/2025
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Lack of ability to independently design external QA procedures, lack of ability to autonomously determine organisational structure
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“27. The Register Committee learned from the panel’s analysis that ANVUR’s ability to design its external QA procedures (i.e. operational independence) and to set up its internal organisational structure (i.e. organisational independence) is rather limited. In panel’s view, the Italian regulations stipulated very specific details on the agency’s external quality assurance procedures, methodologies and the evaluation standards, as well as the internal governance and organisational structure. This approach diminishes ANVUR’s ability to act autonomously regarding its internal regulations and structures.

28. In its additional representation, ANVUR argued that most of the issues outlined by the review panel stem from the Italian national context and legislation. In regard to the operational independence of the agency, ANVUR argued that it has sufficient autonomy in designing its external QA procedures because national legislation emphasises ANVUR’s responsibility to independently define the criteria, indicators, and requirements of its external QA, while in regard to organisational independence, ANVUR states that the national legislation prescribes collaborative relation between the Ministry and ANVUR, instead of a direct supervisory role of the Ministry.

29. The Register Committee took note of ANVUR's remarks. The Committee could still follow panel's view that ANVUR is facing obstacles regarding organisational and operational independence, as the review panel already considered these legislative acts and nonetheless outlined detailed reasons for their concerns about ANVUR’s independence.

30. Considering that the review panel presents convincing evidence and analysis that ANVUR faces obstacles in its organisational and operational independence, the Register Committee concurred with the panel that ANVUR complies only partially with ESG 3.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/11/2024
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Independence, government representatives
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“18. The Register Committee understood from the analysis by the panel that the composition of the Board of Directors has dominant representation of the government and the UIB, and these two stakeholders appoint all six board members.

19. The Register Committee further learned that according to statutes, the Director of the agency is appointed by the Balearic minister responsible for university affairs. Since 2009, however, this position is vacant and the Technical Director, chosen with a public competition, manages the agency.

20. The Register Committee understood that to resolve the above mentioned issues new statutes of the Consortium of the Balearic Agency for Quality Assurance in Higher Education has been drafted. The statutes, however, are not yet in effect. Following this, the Committee concurred with the panel that AQUIB only partially complies with ESG 3.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/11/2024
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	government,
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“16. The Register Committee learned from the panel analysis that the representation of stakeholders in the Governing Council has improved compared to the previous review and that the share of Government appointees in this body has been lowered.

17. The Committee, however, also noted that the regional minister, whose portfolio the agency is situated in, is acting as the President of the agency, chairs the Governing Council and has a casting vote.

18. Furthermore, the Register Committee noted, as underlined by the panel, that the agency is dependent on the Regional Government’s approval for hiring both temporary and permanent staff, which limits the agency’s operational autonomy.

19. Considering the significant level of involvement of the regional government in the governing of the agency and the potential constraints over the staff management and the operational independence of the agency, the Register Committee could not follow the panel’s judgement and concluded that ACCUA complies partially with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	14/03/2022
Standard	3.4 Thematic analysis
Keywords	Content of the thematic analysis
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“the content of the thematic publications mainly involved reflections on the agency’s own experiences in conducting EQA rather than analysis of the results of the EQA (an analysis which could be more appropriate to serve the internal quality assurance processes, ESG 3.6). The Committee agreed with the panel’s views that the agency could improve the content of the analyses so they are more meaningful for the wider academic and QA community”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Focused, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	12/12/2021
Standard	3.4 Thematic analysis
Keywords	Lack of development in preparing thematic analysis
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“7. The panel notes that AKAST reliably contributes the experience gained from its own quality assurance procedures to the regular evaluation of the Key Points and that the agency is documenting the results of its ongoing student survey on its website.

18. The Register Committee welcomes AKAST’s plan to further develop a thematic analysis after an appropriate number of programme accreditation procedures have been completed, but underlined that such an analysis has not been finalised.

19. Considering the limited development of thematic analysis, the Register Committee can follow the review panel conclusion that AKAST complies only partially with ESG 3.4.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	28/06/2022
Standard	3.4 Thematic analysis
Keywords	separate research or bilbiometric analyses do not qualify as thematic analysis
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“38. The panel considered that HCERES' recent activities have been focused on research and bibliometric analysis; analyses drawing on the results of evaluations within the scope of the ESG have not been produced regularly since the summary reports that HCERES/AERES used to produce following earlier evaluation campaigns.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	25/10/2022
Standard	3.4 Thematic analysis
Keywords	Consistent publication of thematic analyses
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee learned that IQAA has published several thematic analyses since the last review. The panel, however, could not see

any formal plan for drafting and publishing these analyses.The Committee considered that despite the absence of a more formal planning the agency has developed a practice and demonstrated a clear vision for conducting analyses based on its EQA processes.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Focused, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	3.4 Thematic analysis
Keywords	Introduced policy for thematic analysis
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee learned that QANU approved a new policy for thematic analysis in October 2018, which defines explicit aims and objectives for various analysis. The panel stressed that QANU acknowledged its responsibility for producing thematic analysis as a way of contributing to the further development of the university research sector in the Netherlands. The panel further added that QANU has demonstrated capacity to use the experiences it gathered, to reflect on them, to share them and to publish outcomes through thematic analysis. Following the evidence and analysis provided by the panel, the Register Committee concurred with the panel’s conclusion that QANU now complies with ESG 3.4.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	22/06/2020
Standard	3.4 Thematic analysis
Keywords	absence of regular analysis based on agency’s findings
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel specifically recommended that the agency “publishes reports of thematic analysis every year”. While the standard requires that such analyses be published "regularly”, it does not impose a specific cycle.

The Register Committee therefore underlined that this recommendation should rather be considered a suggestion.”

Full decision: see agency register entry