Precedents database

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Lack of transparency and precise roles in criteria and procedure for selection of experts and guidelines for decision-making process.
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (25/04/2025)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“While the external review report states that AAQ and SAR function well together as a unit, the external review panel considered that the “allocation of duties should be presented with greater transparency in the relevant guidelines” (p. 25). The Register Committee noted that further comments regarding a certain lack of transparency of the precise roles of AAQ and SAR were made by the panel with regard to the criteria and procedure for selection of experts (see 2.4) as well as guidelines for SAR’s decision deviating from the expert-recommended decisions (see 2.5).The Register Committee considered that transparency is crucial especially in a layered system such as that of AAQ and SAR.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	30/06/2023
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	study programme groups
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee found the difference between the initial and re-assessments of study programme groups on the one hand and the phasing out of assessments of study programme groups on the other hand not to be completely clear.

The agency explained (see clarification of 2023-06-06) that the initial and re-assessment procedures remain compulsory for the opening of any new study programme groups. For existing study programme groups that have gone successfully through multiple assessment processes, the assessments of individual study programme groups are being phased out for a sample of these programmes, within the new model for institutional accreditations.

Having considered the agency’s explanation and the implementation of the new procedures, the Register Committee concurs with the panel’s conclusion of compliance.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	04/04/2024
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	follow-up, online procedures,
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (04/10/2023)
RC decision	Compliance

“12. The Register Committee noted that PKA does not have separate follow-up mechanisms in place, but that they are part of the re-accreditation process i.e., after a conditional two year period (or longer depending on the length of the study cycle) the agency monitors the implementation of recommendations, while in case of a six year accreditation cycle, the agency monitors if the recommendations for improving the quality of education are addressed.

13. The Register Committee finds this approach completely reasonable and in line with the requirement of the standard

14. The Register Committee noted that all of PKA’s evaluation procedures (with some exceptions) are being carried out remotely. In its clarification call the review panel explained that PKA is following clear regulations regarding its remote procedures, regulations that have been updated following wide consultations with the sector. The panel was reassured with PKA’s approach in its online accreditation procedure i.e., PKA carries out observations of classes, institutions are asked to provide a video of the learning facilities and during the remote visit PKA experts also meet with different stakeholders to verify the facts in the review report.

15. The Register Committee further noted concerns from the review panel’s analysis regarding the factual accuracy-check of review reports, as this practice was not clear for those the review panel interviewed. The Register Committee however noted that the possibility for the higher education institution to comment on the assessment report is given to all higher education institutions (as confirmed by the panel) and that this is part of the procedure of the agency in the consideration of the report. The Register Committee nevertheless underlines the panel’s recommendation to further clarify the stage of factual accuracy check in PKA’s procedures.

16. Having considered the clarification of the panel and PKA’s statement to the review report, the Register Committee could not concur with the review panel’s decision of partial compliance, and found that the agency is in fact compliant with ESG 2.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	12/12/2023
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	inconsistencies in the implementation
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“13. The Register Committee noted that there are inconsistencies in the implementation of the processes. The Register Committee underlines the panel’s recommendation that the agency should clearly communicate on the valid reasons behind multiple inputs to its accreditation process and decisions, by publishing them on the website as noted also in its Substantive Change Report Decision of 15 October 2021.

14. The Register Committee further noted the concerns raised by the review panel concerning the lack of relevant criteria and information integrated in AIC’s guidebook from the Law on Higher Education and Cabinet Regulations, as well as the updating of assessment methodologies, frameworks and the guidelines for institutions, as well as experts.

15. From the additional representation by the agency, the Register Committee understood that, when considering that different procedures would be considered as a package the Methodology for organising the assessment of higher education institutions and colleges could be seen as a follow-up procedure for the one-off procedure Accreditation of higher education institutions. While the panel noted that the agency is preparing a cyclical institutional accreditation, the Committee reiterates the need for clear follow-up measures.

16. The Register Committee concluded that AIC complies with ESG 2.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/10/2024
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	no site visits, inconsistency,
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“20. The Register Committee learned from the analysis of the panel that only the EQA Audit process is clearly outlined in the audit manual. For the rest of the activities, both the information provided to the panel as well as the publicly available documents, were not always consistent.

21. The Committee noted the panel’s concerns on a number of shortcomings related to the programme and provider accreditation

procedures, such as short application forms instead of self-evaluation reports for some procedures, no site-visits (see also ESG 2.2) and lack of consistent follow-up.

22. In its statement on the report (of 2024-05-20), MFHEA informed that the discrepancies between the documents and the shortcomings related to programme and provider accreditation procedures have been further addressed in the revised manuals for programme and provider accreditation procedures, which have been in use as of January 2024 for provider accreditation procedures and will be, respectively, as of January 2025, for programme accreditation procedures.

23. The Register Committee took note of the revised manuals but could not confirm whether and how these changes are implemented in practice.

24. In its additional representation, the agency reaffirmed that the concerns raised by the Committee for provider accreditation procedures have been addressed in the new Provider Accreditation Manual and the concerns for programme accreditation procedures will be addressed in the new Programme Accreditation Manual.

25. The Register Committee took in consideration the actions taken by the agency in order to address the concerns raised by the panel and the Register Committee. The Committee, however, could not confirm how these changes have been implemented in practice without a panel insight and found that some of them are yet to be implemented. Therefore, the Committee could concur with the panel 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	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Difficulties in verifying that all procedures are pre-defined and published
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“16. The Register Committee understood that although ANVUR generally implements all stages of the review (self-assessment, site visit, report, follow-up), there are certain exceptions: site visits are not mandatory in the initial (ex ante) accreditation while the follow-up of the newly accredited institutions is only conducted via the periodic assessments.

17. The Register Committee learned from the analysis of the panel that ANVUR is lacking a comprehensive and published description for each external quality assurance procedure that would serve as an overarching guide (see also ESG 2.2). Due to this, the agency cannot ensure that its external QA processes are pre-defined and published, which could further endanger the consistent implementation of these processes and of their individual phases.

18. In its additional representation, ANVUR demonstrated that since the site visit, the agency published a Manual which comprehensively compiles, describes and explains all external QA activities of the agency in detail.

19. The Register Committee could verify that now ANVUR’s procedures are pre-defined and published, and was able to concur with the panel’s conclusion that ANVUR complies with ESG 2.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Focused, coordinated by ECA
Decision of	18/03/2021
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student involvement
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“9. The review panel's report contained no analysis of the factors that led to that departure from EQ-Arts' own policies, but confirmed that all reviews since December 2018 have included students (8 reviews in 2019 and 1 in 2020); the panel further elaborated on EQ-Arts approach to recruiting and training experts.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/03/2023
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Lack of meaningful involvement of students in panels
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“ECAQA involves a variety of stakeholders in the composition of panels, including students. The Committee learned that, in practice, the student reviewers were not always offered the training provided for the other panel members – such conditions made their involvement in some of the reviews nominal in the panel's view.The Register Committee found that despite the formal involvement, ECAQA's approach did not ensure meaningful participation of students in all review panels”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/12/2021
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Strength of the training for reviewers
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The training for experts relies mainly on sending materials to the experts and their self-

preparation and group briefings at the beginning of the review”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	15/10/2021
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Involvement of students in panels
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee learned that the absence of student

members in the panels in the two activities is due to the specificity of the

processes; the procedures focus on quantitative indicators on teaching

offering and the human, material and financial resources. The Committee, however, understood that the process goes beyond a

purely technical check of numbers, as it generally involves other experts also

making a qualitative assessment. The Committee could not agree with the

panel’s conclusion that the “student perspective could not add any value” in

those procedures and considered that the students’ views could offer an

important insight into the matters under observation in both activities”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	22/06/2020
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student involvement
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (25/04/2025)
RC decision	Compliance

“The review panel noted that “when the nature of the assessment in question so requires, every effort is made to include non-academic experts [...] as well as students who are experienced in quality assessment in higher education“ (ERR, p. 39). As the Register Committee found the analysis unclear as to whether students are consistently involved in all ACSUCYL’s review panels, the Committee asked the panel for further clarifications. The panel explained that all evaluation procedures within the scope of the ESG include one student member. The panel further added that students are regarded as equal members of peer review expert panels.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Panels composition
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its 2016 decision on QQI's Substantive Change Report, the Register Committee flagged for attention the composition of QQI expert panels.The Register Committee noted that some specific QQI processes do not use traditional expert panels, but are based on desk assessments or dialogues by QQI staff, followed by subsequent decisions where applicable. The Committee noted that the decision-making bodies include all perspectives that are otherwise required to be on a panel.The Committee further noted that wherever panels are deployed their composition complies with the standard. The Register Committee therefore concluded that the flag was addressed and concurred with the panel's conclusion that QQI complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Involvement of students in panels.
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its previous decision the Register Committee flagged CTI’s involvement of students in some of its review panels. The Register Committee noted that CTI works together with the French engineering students’ association, to ensures that CTI systematically nominates student experts in all its regular programme evaluations. The review panel also confirmed that in its CeQuInt evaluations, CTI’s panel include among its four experts also a student. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Panels composition
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (06/06/2019)
RC decision	Compliance

“The review panel learned that in cases where expert panels are employed for follow-up and case-based monitoring procedures their composition is not clearly defined. The Register Committee therefore asked the agency for further clarifications. The agency explained (see letter of 06/06/2019)) that its guidebook on follow-up procedures define the composition of panels for both follow-up and case-based monitoring procedures. The agency stated that it ensured that a student representative is included in the composition of the expert panel for both procedures.The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel’s judgment that NCEQE is compliant with ESG 2.4.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Involvement of students in review committees
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In the previous review this standard was flagged due to the fact that the regular involvement of students on all review committees was yet to become practice.The Committee noted that steps have been taken in order to ensure regular involvement of students. Participation of students in evaluation procedures isguaranteed by the Basque Country Act 13/2012.The Register Committee therefore concluded that the flag has been addressed and concurred with the panel's conclusion that Unibasq (substantially) complies with the standard”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	06/12/2018
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student involvement in pilot procedures
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that there was no systematic inclusion of students in all expert groups for initial, paper-based accreditation as yet, but that the inclusion of students in these expert groups was currently piloted.[…] the Register Committee concluded that the flag has only been partially addressed so far, pending the pilot advancing to become a full regular part of the process.. The Committee further noted that there were no students included in the panel for the pilot on Combined Education and Research Evaluations, but appreciated that the panel was confident that students would be involved in case this activity became permanent.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/06/2018
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Nomination of students in expert panels
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (30/05/2018)
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee, however, noted that there might remain a residual risk of influence as long as higher education institutions could de facto exercise a veto right in the nomination of students to the NEAA pool of experts. While not impeding the agency's compliance with the standard (nor with standard 3.3) the Register Committee consider that NEAA should be mindful of that issue (also in regard to operational independence under standard 3.3).”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Involvement of external experts
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its decision of inclusion Register Committee flagged the involvement of external experts in initial accreditation.The Register Committee noted that the accreditation panels of AI now include at least three members and consist of professional experts with higher education experience and a student for each procedure. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student involvement
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The review panel confirmed that students are now engaged in all AEQES evaluation panels, as full members of the panels, except for follow-up evaluations.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/03/2023
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Student involvement in panels
Panel conclusion	Non-compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (14/02/2023)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“Further efforts made by the

agency to engage students in the review panels - in particular

students have participated in the first reviews by the time the Register Committee analysed the application. While the panel’s

conclusion of non-compliance did reflect accurately the situation at the

February 2022’s site visit, the Committee concluded that the agency is now

partially compliant with the standard. The Committee, however, underlined

that further evidence of the actual involvement of the students in the panels

will be needed and has to be thoroughly analysed in the next review of HAHE”

Full decision: see agency register entry