Database of Precedents

Application	Renewal
Review	Focused, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	14/03/2025
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	alignment of ESG part 1
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“8. In its decision of 2023-12-12, the Register Committee found AIC to be partially compliant with ESG 2.1, as some standards of ESG Part 1, (ESG 1.1,ESG 1.2 and ESG 1.3) were not covered in all of the external quality assurance activities of the agency.

9. The Register Committee learned from the panel analysis that AIC has modified the methodology for its activities and now all ESG aligned activities of AIC cover Part 1 of the ESG sufficiently.

10. The Register Committee could therefore follow the panel’s conclusion and found the agency to be compliant with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Focused, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	14/03/2025
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student involvement
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“11. In its decision of 2023-12-12, the Register Committee found AIC to be partially compliant with the standard, due to lack of involvement of students in the review panels in its procedure Inclusion of licensed study programme on the accreditation of study fields. The Register Committee understood from the review report that as AIC moves towards a system focused on cyclical institutional reviews, it has discontinued this activity and no future reviews of this kind will be implemented.

12. The Register Committee considered that since the agency has discontinued the activity, the conditions leading to partial compliance have ceased to exist. The Register Committee could therefore follow the panel’s judgement and found the agency to be compliant with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Focused, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	14/03/2025
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	transparency, piblication of reports
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“13. In its decision of 2023-12-12, the Register Committee found AIC to be partially compliant due to the insufficient transparency in the agency reporting processes, i.e., the published reports and decisions did not reflect the elements which have been provided and taken into consideration after the site visit, nor the additional conditions given to the higher education institution.

14. The Register Committee understood from the panel’s analysis that following the amendments of the national regulations in Latvia, AIC is now publishing review reports and decisions by the Study Quality Commission in full on the agency’s E-platform, specifically developed for publication of reports and decisions.

15.Following the novelties, the Register Committee could follow the panel’s conclusion and found the agency to be compliant with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Focused, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	14/03/2025
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	internal quality assurance processes, feedback mechanisms
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“16. In its decision of 2023-12-12, the Register Committee found AIC to be partially compliant as it could not conclude that the agency’s internal quality assurance processes are fully sufficient to assure and enhance the quality and integrity of its activities.

17. The Register Committee learned from the panel’s analysis that the agency has improved its internal QA processes and now has a robust internal QA system which is well documented in a manual where all the processes are described in detail. Furthermore, as noted by the panel, the agency now has well developed feedback mechanisms, effective communication and autonomy in making the necessary changes as part of its internal quality management.

18. Following the evidence on improvements to the internal QA system of the agency, the Register Committee could follow the panel’s judgement and found the agency to be compliant with the standard. The Committee,however, highlighted the panel’s recommendation that AIC should also include aspects dealing with effectiveness and impact of internal quality procedures into their quality manual.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	fitness for purpose of follow-up processes
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (13/06/2025)
RC decision	Compliance

“9. The Register Committee, noted that THEQC requires each higher education institution to perform self-assessment procedure and prepare a report (ISER) annually, regardless of the institution’s participation in the agency’s review procedures in that year. The Committee understood that these annual ISER are later considered as part of the review procedures when they take place (ESG 2.3 in review report).

10. While the Register Committee could follow the panel’s conclusion and judgement of the standard, the agency should consider that the requirement for higher education institutions in preparing and submitting ISER on an annual basis might create a heavy workload and might affect the fitness for purpose of its activities, taking into consideration also the maturity of higher education institutions’ internal quality assurance systems after having gone through several external quality assurance procedures.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	remunerating of experts,
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“11. The Register Committee noted that all external quality assurance activity are carried out by an expert panel, including students. The Committee, however, learned that while students are currently involved in every panel their involvement is not made explicit in any internal documentation.

12. The Committee further learned that the experts perform their duties on voluntary basis without receiving any financial support for their work.

13. While the Register Committee concurred with the panel’s judgement that the agency continues to comply with the standard, it underlined the panel’s recommendation that student involvement in expert panels should be ensured by mandating it in the agency’s rules and regulations. The Committee further underlined the panels recommendation that the agency should explore ways of remunerating experts for their work.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	consistency in decision making, publishing of final scores
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (13/06/2025)
RC decision	Compliance

“14. In its last decision, the Register Committee found the agency partially compliant due to the lack of consistency in the decision making.

15. The Committee learned that since the last review the agency has established a trustworthy and accessible framework with focus on consistency in its decision making – by developing the Rubric, a methodological tool that links criteria and sub-criteria with the maturity levels of PDCA elements.

16. The Committee further learned that the consistency in the decision making is additionally safeguarded by checks done by the agency’s Commission on Institutional External Evaluation and Accreditation.

17. The Register Committee sought clarification by the panel, related with the panel’s recommendation under ESG 2.6, but related with the publication of the scores of the IAP and IIAP procedures.

18. The panel clarified that while ‘the Rubric’ methodology created by the agency helps higher education institutions in understanding the criteria and the final outcome (scores) from the review procedures, the final scores of the IAP and IIAP procedures are not published with the reports which would increase the transparency of the review outcomes. (see Annex 2)

19. Following the developments implemented by the agency, through the introduction of the Rubric tool and its impact on consistency in the decision making of THEQC, the Register Committee was able to concur with the panel’s conclusion and found that the agency complies with the standard. The Committee underlined the panel’s recommendation (under ESG 2.6 in the report) that the agency should consider publishing the final scores of its procedures in the final review reports in order to strengthen transparency of the outcomes.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	operational independence
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“20. In its last decision, the Register Committee found the agency to be partially compliant due to THEQC’s workforce that was heavily consisting of (academic) experts working at the agency but being paid by their higher education institutions.

21. The Register Committee, learned that while the number of permanent staff has increased since the last focused review, the number of seconded experts working at the agency while being paid by their higher education institutions remains ‘significant’ (10 out of 44 permanent staff members).

22. Considering that the concerns from the last decision regarding the dependency of the agency on staff being paid by higher education institutions remained, the Register Committee concurred with the panel that the agency remains to be partially compliant with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	internal quality assurance processes, efficiency of monitoring, performance indicators
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (13/06/2025)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“23. The Register Committee learned that the implemented internal process-based management system, designed to maintain the organisational structure of THEQC, is not working effectively as an internal quality assurance system for the agency.

24. In connection with the above-mentioned deficiencies of the agency’s internal quality assurance, the Register Committee further noted the panel’s concerns about the efficiency of the monitoring of THEQC’s performance indicators. These indicators are listed in the Strategic Plan, but are being monitored solely by one staff member who is not actively involved in the process of strategic planning.

25. Considering the concerns raised above, the Register Committee concurred with the panel that the agency is partially compliant with the standard. The Register Committee underlined the panel’s recommendation that the agency should review its internal process-based management system in order to simplify and clarify issues such as an employee’s line management and lines of accountability.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	follw-up
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“9. The Register Committee learned from the panel analysis that all of the activities include a self-assessment, an external evaluation and an external evaluation report, but there is no consistent follow-up for accredited programmes.

10. In its statement to the report, the agency informed that it plans to adapt its follow-up procedures following the legal changes that prescribe mandatory follow-ups. Furthermore, AQUA informed that following the planed changes the first mandatory follow-up evaluations are expected to take place in

2028.

11. The Register Committee, took note of the steps taken and welcomed the planned actions in order to introduce mandatory and consistent follow-up for accredited programmes. It, however, found that these changes are yet to be introduced and implemented in practice by the agency. The Register Committee therefore concurs with the panel that AQUA complies only partially with ESG 2.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	publication of experts reports, quality of reports,
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“12. The Register Committee noted that the responsibility for the preparation of the final external review reports lays with the Evaluation Committee. The text is based on the preliminary expert report, which can be altered regarding the style and layout by the Evaluation Committee. In the panel’s view, the changes are of minor nature. The Committee further learned that the agency only publishes the reports from the Evaluation Committee.

13. Furthermore, the Committee learned from the panel analysis that at the time of the visit, due to legal obstacles, AQUA published only reports with positive outcome on its website, rather than all reports as required per the standard.

14. Lastly, the panel noted that the agency should ensure that the expert reports provide sufficient evidence and analysis in order to substantiate the conclusions and the level of compliance judged by the panels.

15. In its statement on the report, AQUA noted that with the changes in the national legislation of January 2025, all evaluation reports, regardless of the outcome, have been published on the agency’s website. Furthermore, the agency informed that it has taken concrete steps in order to ensure consistency and provide more detailed guidelines to the panels on reporting, by developing a new reporting template.

16. The Register Committee welcomed the steps taken by the agency to address the deficiencies in addressing publication of all reports regardless of their outcome. The Committee further noted the planned actions by AQUA in addressing the concerns regarding the quality of the report. The Committee, however, noted that the presented actions are yet to be fully implement in practice and once implemented.

17. Lastly, while the panel notes that the differences in style and layout are minor between the final experts report and Evaluation Committee reports published by the agency, the Register Committee underlined that the as per the standard ‘full reports by the experts should be published’ since this can be of interest for the public.

18. Considering the remaining deficiencies in the quality of the expert reports and no publication of the same, the Register Committee concurred with the panel that the agency complies only partially with ESG 2.6.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	organisational independence, operational independence
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“19. The Register Committee learned from the report that the Director is appointed by the Parliament upon the recommendation by the Minister responsible for higher education, without a public call nor specific selection criteria.

20. The Committee found this problematic given the Director’s extensive power within the organisation and responsibilities in ensuring the independent operations of the agency: besides being the member of the Steering Committee (governing body), the Director also appoints the evaluation panels, chairs the Evaluation Committee and recommends the two other members of the Evaluation Committee, the body responsible for taking the accreditation decisions and issuing the final evaluation reports.

21. The Register Committee further noted that the organisational independence from the Ministry is undermined by fact that a senior Ministry official is sitting on and chairing the Appeals Committee, body of three members who are all simultaneously members of the Steering Committee as well.

22. In its statement to the report, AQUA informed that following the changes in the national legislation of January 2025, the process for selection of Director of AQUA will be based on a public call and an objective merit-based selection process, which will be lead by a commission responsible higher education in the Parliament instead of the Minister.

23. Furthermore, the agency informed that with the legal changes of January 2025, the composition of the agency’s Appeals Committee has changed from three to six members, and no longer includes a representative from the Ministry. In addition, the number of Steering Committee members in the Appeals Committee is decreased to one.

24. The Register Committee took note of these updates and welcomed the legal changes made in order to ensure organisational independence of AQUA. While noting the changes made in the composition of the Appeals Committee, the Register Committee underlined that the presented changes on the procedure for appointment of AQUA Director are yet to be implemented and reviewed by an external review panel to verify whether they have been properly implement in practice.

25. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel that AQUA complies only partially with ESG 3.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Quality of reports; publication of negative reports
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“9. Since the registration on EQAR (in 2015-01-31), BAC has been found partially compliant due to concerns on the quality of its reports and lack of publication of negative reports. In the last decision for renewal of registration (of 2020-11-02), the Register Committee noted that the reports provided insufficient qualitative insight and lacked clear and consistent inclusion of evidence, analysis, and findings. Additionally, BAC still have not had published any negative reports and decisions.

10. The Register Committee learned from the panel analysis that while BAC has revised its report template in order to provide more references to evidence and analytical content, the concerns on the quality of reports remained pertinent. As noted by the panel, while inspectors analyse a substantial amount of evidence, this is not always reflected in the inspection reports.

11. The Register Committee also learned from the panel analysis that, although the agency has changed its policy to publish negative reports and decisions, they have not had any negative reports in practice since their last review.

12. The Register Committee acknowledged the actions taken by the agency towards ensuring publication of all of its reports. The Committee, however, considered that the quality of reporting, including the insufficient evidence in the inspection reports, persists to be an issue. Following this, the Committee concurred with the panel that the agency is partially compliant with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	3.4 Thematic analysis
Keywords	Lack of thematic analysis
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“13. In its last decision for renewal of registration (of 2020-11-02), the Register Committee found the agency to be partially compliant with the standard due to the limited thematic analysis, both regarding volume and content of the report. At the time, the agency had produced only one thematic analysis, which was descriptive and summarised the contents of inspection reports.

14. The Register Committee learned from the review report that BAC had not produced any thematic analysis since the last external review. Nevertheless, the Committee found that the agency had started working on a new approach to writing thematic analysis and had included stakeholders in the process.

15. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel that the agency only partially complies with standard and emphasised the panel’s recommendation to urgently develop precise plans for conducting thematic analysis and start conducting them.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	Stakeholder involvement in developing methodologies
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“12. The Register Committee learned from the external review report that even though the agency generally involves stakeholders in its work, they were not directly involved in the consultation process regarding the national protocol for the activity European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes.

13. While the Register Committee could follow the panel's view that the agency is compliant with the standard based on its general practice of involving stakeholders in the design of its methodologies, the Committee followed the panel’s recommendation and emphasised that this practice should be employed in the development of all of the agency’s methodologies, without exemption.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Site visits; Lack of structured follow-up
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“14. In panel’s view the site visits of the activity European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes are insufficient in both duration and depth. Specifically, the interviews during the site visits were only limited to teaching staff and management, while the site visits were held online, preventing the reviewers from assessing the infrastructure of all institutions and other relevant contextual information.

15. Furthermore, the Register Committee noted that the procedure does not include a structured follow-up mechanism and is based on a permanent exchange of documents between the agency and institutions.

16. In its additional representation, ACSUCYL explained their plans to address concerns regarding the format of the site visit and to align the procedure and methodology of the new activity with the requirements set out in the agreed European framework of the European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes.

17. The Register Committee welcomed ACSUCYL’s plans but noted that they remain to be implemented and externally reviewed. Therefore, in light of the existing deficiencies in site visits and unstructured follow-up mechanisms for the European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes, the Committee concurred with the panel’s conclusion that ACSUCYL is partially compliant with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Quality of reports, lack of publication of negative reports
Panel conclusion	Non-compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“18. The Register Committee understood from the panel’s analysis that the final reports resulting from the activity European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes differ substantially from the draft reports prepared by the review panel. This is due to the possibility given to the Degree Assessment Commission (DAC), the responsible body for assessment, certification, and accreditation, to modify the draft expert reports.

19. The Register Committee further noted that during the interim stage of the review, higher education institutions, besides providing factual comments, can also address the shortcomings identified in the draft expert reports, with these results being considered and later included in the final report by the DAC. This process can lead to changes in judgements, removal of recommendations and suggestions, and substantial alterations of the text prepared by the expert panels.

20. In their statement to the report (Annex 2), the agency clarified that addressing shortcomings identified in the draft report is part of ex-ante verification for new degrees since the programmes are not yet implemented and the final modifications are evaluated before the publication of the final report.

21. The Register Committee further learned that the reports from the European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes lacked a critical appraisal of the evidence, which is primarily based on self-evaluation reports and supporting documentation rather than gathered during site visits.

22. The Register Committee additionally learned from the panel analysis that the agency does not publish negative reports from its ex-ante procedures. This could not be specifically verified for the reports resulting from the European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes, since only two reviews have been completed at the moment of the site visit, both with a positive outcome.

23. In their statement to the report, ACSUCYL explained that they publish negative reports except for ones resulting from ex-ante procedures, as their platform does not allow inclusion of reports on programmes that are not listed in the University Register of Centres and Degrees, the Spanish national register of degrees and university centres. However, the agency publishes these reports on DEQAR.

24. The Register Committee considered the agency’s explanation but underlined that, as per the standard, all reports should be published irrespective of the outcome. Furthermore, the Committee emphasised that in the aim of strengthening transparency, when ACSUCYL’s reports are published on any platform, including the agency’s website, this should include all reports.

25. In its additional representation, ACSUCYL presented their plans to address the issues of the format and quality of the reports and to create a dedicated working group for this task. Additionally, the agency noted that they have already started publishing negative ex-ante reports on their website, and the repository now includes all the historical data as well.

26. The Register Committee welcomed ACSUCYL’s plans to address concerns on the format and quality of reports and was able to verify that the agency is now publishing its ex-ante reports. The Committee, however, found that the actions presented to address the remaining concerns raised by the panel and the Register Committee are yet to be introduced, implemented in practice, and evaluated through external review.

27. The Register Committee acknowledged concerns raised by the panel about the lack of evidence in the review reports and the alterations made by the DAC, noting that the activity European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes does not comply with the standard. Nevertheless, under the assumption that the rest of the activities remain compliant with the standard since the last full review, the Register Committee concluded that ACSUCYL overall complies partially with ESG 2.6.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	Student involvement
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“28. In the last decision of renewal of registration, the Register Committee found the agency to be partially compliant due to the lack of student involvement in the agency’s governance and work. To offer students the opportunity to contribute to governance and operations, the agency at that time established a Student Board, however, only as an advisory board without further involvement in the agency’s decision-making. The Register Committee found that students have not been included as members of the Board of Directors (the governance body of the agency). While ACSUCYL made attendance of students at the meetings of the Board of Directors possible since October 2021, the agency has not yet utilised it in practice.

29. The Register Committee noted from the panel analysis that since the last review, the agency included a student in the Degree Assessment Commission.

30. In its statement to the report, ACSUCYL explained that they have not employed this in practice because, since the change, the Board of Directors' meetings have only addressed management, administrative, and financial issues.

31. While the Register Committee welcomed the action taken for better student involvement in the work of the agency, it found that the involvement of students in the governance of the agency (as per the requirement of the standard) remains insufficient, given that students are not involved in the Board of Directors.

32. In its additional representation, ACSUCYL noted that while student participation had not been utilised in the Board of Directors due to the nature of issues discussed in its meetings, this practice was now initiated in their recent meeting. The agency has updated the rules governing the functioning of the Student Board to include them in the decision-making process and approved the proposal to initiate legislative changes to include student members in the Board of Directors (see more under ESG 3.3).

33. The Register Committee welcomed the actions taken by the agency in order to address the concerns on student involvement. Nevertheless, the Committee could not confirm how these changes have been implemented in practice. Furthermore, the announced changes in legislation are yet to be enacted and systematically implemented. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel that the agency complies only partially with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Independence; Dual role of Interim Director
Panel conclusion	Non-compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“34. In the last decision of renewal of registration, the Register Committee found the agency to be partially compliant with the standard due to issues related to the organisational independence of the agency. Namely, the Governing Board was predominantly composed of the representatives of the regional government, including the Chairperson, while the members were appointed by the regional Minister responsible for universities and research. Furthermore, the agency was largely dependent on the regional government for approval and hiring of new staff and the annual approval of the budget.

35. The Register Committee noted from the panel analysis that the concerns raised during the last review remain pertinent. The majority of Board members are either appointed by the regional Minister of Education or take on their roles by virtue of holding specific positions within state administration, and the Board is chaired by the Head of the Regional Ministry for Universities.

36. Furthermore, the Register Committee learned from the panel analysis that the Acting Director of the agency during the site visit was simultaneously the head of the General Directorate responsible for universities and research, who also serves as a vice-chair of the Board.

37. The Register Committee concurred with the panel that the dual role of the Acting Director endangers the independence of the agency, especially given that the agency's organisational structure is centred around the director's position, which grants this position significant influence.

38. The Register Committee further learned from the panel analysis that the agency does not have sufficient autonomy in the recruitment process, and the budgetary constraints remain under the authority of the regional government, hindering the agency's operational flexibility and autonomy.

39. In its additional representation, ACSUCYL informed EQAR that in order to reduce the representation of regional government members on the Board of Directors, the agency approved a proposal to replace two governmental officials with two students. To that end, it has submitted a proposal to the regional government for legislative amendment. The Register Committee further asked for clarification on the timeframe when the legislative amendments would be approved. The agency clarified there was no precise timeline for amending the legislation, but they expect it to be approved by January 2026.

40. The Register Committee welcomed the actions taken by the agency, but it acknowledged that the proposed legislative changes have yet to be adopted. Additionally, once adopted, it remains to be considered and reviewed by an external review panel.

41. To address the dual role of the Interim Director, the agency has taken accelerated steps to appoint a new Director and has published an open call with expedited deadlines to resolve this issue. Following a clarification request, the agency clarified that as of yet it had no formal mechanism to avoid the dual role of the director, but they have accelerated the process to select the new director by 9 June 2025.

42. Following the clarification call with ACSUCYL (of 2025-06-05), the agency informed the Committee that a new Director has been selected on 9 June 2025 (see Annex 4). The Register Committee welcomed the steps taken by the agency to appoint a new Director with expedited deadlines and emphasised the importance of introducing measures to avoid dual/multiple roles for the Director of the agency in the future, which could compromise the agency’s independence.

43. In its additional representation, the agency further explained that budget control mechanisms from the regional government are mandatory, as the agency receives public funding. The agency clarified that while being accountable to the regional government, the agency has autonomy to plan and execute the budget and manage its staffing process.

44. The Register Committee welcomed the clarification, however, noted that concerns about the dependency on the regional government for the approval of the budget and staffing are still pertinent.

45. While concerns on the agency’s independence are yet to be fully resolved, considering the agency has already selected a new Director following an open call, the Register Committee concurred that ACSUCYL now partially complies with the ESG 3.3. Furthermore, the Register Committee noted that ACSUCYL should inform EQAR once the new Director starts its term and the legislative changes are approved.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/11/2024
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	publication of reports, negative
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“7. In its previous decision, the Register Committee found the agency to be partially compliant due to the lack of publication of reports with negative results of its ex-ante verification of study programmes.

8. The Register Committee learned that ACCUA now publishes reports with negative and positive results of all evaluations processes except for reviews of universities for recognition on its website. From the report, the Committee learned that these reviews only occur by a request from the regional ministry and are sporadic. The Committee further understood that the agency is not authorised to publish the reports as this is in the remit of the regional parliament.

9. Given the improvements made in publication of the negative reports, the Register Committee could concur with the panel that the agency now complies with the standard. The Register Committee, nevertheless, highlighted the panel’s recommendation that the agency should raise the issue with the publication of the results of the reviews of universities for recognition with the regional authorities to ensure that these reports are made available to the public.”

Full decision: see agency register entry