Database of Precedents

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/11/2024
Standard	3.4 Thematic analysis
Keywords	thematic report
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“20. The Register Committee learned that ACCUA has created a statistical analysis unit and produced five thematic reports since the last external review. However, as noted by the panel, out of the five reports only one can be considered as a thematic analysis in the sense of the standard, since the other four reports provided useful inputs for policy debates with regional stakeholders and for improvements in quality assurance at universities.

21. The Register Committee finds, in line with its interpretation of the standard, that the thematic analysis report in question is sufficient for achieving compliance with the standard and therefore could not follow the panel’s judgement of partial compliance and concluded that ACCUA complies with ESG 3.4.

22. The Register Committee nevertheless underlined the panel’s recommendation that the agency should devise a clear plan for thematic studies and use its evaluation reports to produce these studies.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	26/11/2024
Standard	3.4 Thematic analysis
Keywords	Collaborative thematic analysis, lack of regularity
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“20. In its last decision, the Register Committee found that no thematic analysis)

was performed, and therefore concluded that ACSUG complies only partially with

ESG 3.4.

21. The Register Committee understood from the analysis of the panel that

ACSUG relies on collaboration with, and contributes to, the thematic analyses

coordinated by the Spanish Network of University Quality Agencies (REACU).

However, The Committee also understood that ACSUG does not have any stand-

alone thematic analyses that they conduct themselves and that thematic analysis is

still not included in the regular workflows and task distribution of the agency (see

also Register Committee remarks under ESG 3.1).

22. The Register Committee emphasised that conducting thematic analyses

under the partnership with REACU does not fulfil the requirements of the standard

because the regularity of such activities is sporadic, and ACSUG is dependent on the

thematic analysis coordinator (REACU).

23. Following the lack of thematic analysis conducted by ACSUG, the Register

Committee concurred with the panel that ACSUG complies only partially with ESG

3.4.”

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	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/03/2023
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	strong involvement of the regional government
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee notes that the overall setup of the agency

provides the Regional Government with a large influence in the governance

and operation of AVAP, i.e. the operative decisions are mainly taken by the

Executive Committee which consists of six members, three of them being

the representatives of the Regional Government, the proposal for Director

comes from the Regional Government. The agency has initiated a legal

process for reducing the number of local Governmental representatives

in its steering bodies - a change hat was yet to take place.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	25/10/2022
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Strong role of a single actor
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The founder of the agency, acting as a President, has a strong executive role - they nominate and appoint members of the Supervisory Board (and is a board member), the Appeals Commission, the Complaints Commission and the experts councils, recruits the staff

members and attends the meetings of the Accreditation Council. The Committee found that the current arrangements, in which one

single actor could use their controlling stake over the agency in several regards, represents a substantial risk of an infringement on the independence of the agency.”

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 (21/04/2026)
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	12/12/2023
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	dominant role of the Director, lack of independent stakeholder consisted governing body
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Committee found that in the present arrangements the founder has a dominant figure in the work of the agency. His/her

position could endanger the organisational and the operational independence of IKCA, especially in the absence of an independent

stakeholder governing body. The Committee found also that further clarity is needed in the selection processes of its different bodies.”

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 ASIIN
Decision of	11/03/2024
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	strong role of the role of the Governing Board in the work and formal outcomes of the agency
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“the involvement of the Governing Board in the

review process is significant. For example, a Board member serves as a

Chair in all panels. Upon the completion of the report by the panel, two

Board members are involved in finalising the text. The final decision on the

report is taken by the Board. While the agency has formal mechanisms for

preventing influence over the decision-making from the Board members

involved in the review process, the panel expressed concerns of informal

influences”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	12/12/2023
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	strong involvement of the Government in selection of members of some the agency's bodies, lack of clear procedures for selection and dismissal of Board members, lack of safeguarding mechanisms
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“increased involvement of the Government in the selection of the Board members, lack of clear

procedures for the selection and dismissal of Board members and lack of mechanisms safeguarding the agency from the Government’s interference in its work, as well as recent changes for increasing of the role of the Government and the ministry responsible for higher education in selecting and electing key positions and governing bodies”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Focused, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/10/2024
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	strong role of the director
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The role of the General Director is rather dominant in the work in the agency including the approval of the composition of the Expert Council, the appointment of members of the Accreditation Council and the approval of all internal regulations of the agency, including the ones related to the accreditation processes.”

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