Database of Precedents

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2024
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Absence of student reviewers; Training of student reviewers
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“10. In its previous decision for renewal of registration on EQAR (of 2024-11-05), A3ES was found to be partially compliant with the standard due to the absence of student reviewers in panels in the New Study Programmes (NCE) procedures and overseas accreditations. The Register Committee noted from the panel analysis that the status quo has not changed.

11. Furthermore, the Committee understood that except for initial trainings, the agency does not organise systematic training for new or revised processes and that some reviewers, including students, have not received training in the past five years. Furthermore, the Committee understood that student reviewers receive only training for programme reviews, but not for institutional reviews.

12. Given the lack of students involvement in some procedures and the lack of systemic training for reviewers, the Register Committee concurred with the panel conclusion, and found that A3ES remains to be partially compliant with ESG 2.4.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/11/2024
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Peer-review experts
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“11. The Register Committee learned from the panel’s analysis that, in the ex-post accreditation reviews are collaborative effort between the panel and the Commission of Study Programmes Evaluation (CET). In particular, the Criterion 3 of the methodology is pre-evaluated by a member of the CET. Even though it is not currently the practice, these members can also participate in the external site visit.

12. The Register Committee shared the panel’s concerns that the current set up in which the CET members are participating both in the external evaluation and the decision making on the final outcomes of the review may lead to a potential conflict of interest. Further, the Register Committee noted that this arrangement is contrary to the requirement that external quality assurance is conducted by a group of external experts.

13. The Register Committee also learned that follow-up activities are not conducted by panels, but directly by CET sub-commissions. CET sub-commission includes a chairperson, two academic members, one student member and one quality spokesperson.

14. Given the above mentioned issues, the Register Committee was unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion of compliance and found that AQUIB only partially complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	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	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	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	25/10/2022
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	lack of consistency, unclear understanding of multi-level compliance scale
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“8.The panel considered that SKVC's criteria are lacking clarity, especially with regard to the exact understanding of the 5-level scale used by SKVC. The panel recommended developing guidelines for interpretation of each level to enhance consistency of their use.

9.The Committee understood that the current situation as described and analysed by the panel might lead to a lack of consistency.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/03/2023
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	Undocumented mechanisms for ensuring consistency
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (11/01/2026)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Committee noted the informal nature of the internal mechanisms for ensuring consistency and agreed with the panel on

the risk posed in ensuring the consistency of outcomes in the assessment procedures.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	25/10/2022
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	Criteria for decision making are not published
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The criteria are interpreted in a consistent manner and the decisions are better harmonised. The criteria, though well known by the external experts, are not published.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/03/2020
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	transparency of criteria
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“29. The Register Committee took note of the panel's analysis that the criteria are well-documented in AHPGS' handbooks and are interpreted in a consistent manner.

30. Despite some room for improvement identified by the panel in that the Handbooks could be more detailed, the Register Committee considered that the flag was addressed and concurred with the panel's conclusion that AHPGS complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	clarity of the criteria for assessment
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (15/03/2019)
RC decision	Compliance

“Following the review panel's analysis that SQAA's criteria for assessment were not always clear and left room for interpretation, the Register Committee sought and received clarification from the panel on its conclusion as to the present standard. The Register Committee understood that SQAA's criteria were by and large perceived as clear, and that these remarks related to some – but not all or the majority of – criteria. It became clear that the panel's findings were more nuanced than the language might have suggested.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/06/2018
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	consistency in decision making
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee took note of the panel's analysis that the evidence in the report body does not always match the conclusion as to compliance with certain standards, and that it was not always possible to track all the information required by the standards in the text of the reports. The Register Committee understood that this might in part be a result of the duplication caused by the “add-on” way of incorporating the ESG.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/11/2017
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	decision making
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its last renewal decision (of 1/12/2012), the Register Committee flagged for attention the criteria for outcomes on the accreditation of existing programmes and in particular the consistency of decisions based on reviews undertaken by different agencies.The panel stated that NVAO has taken a number of steps to improve the decision-making process and found that there has been good progress in clarifying criteria for outcomes. The panel further underlined the difficulty of grading outcomes from insufficient to excellent on which further reflection by NVAO will be needed.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	criteria not published fully
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The review panel noted that ANQA's evaluation protocols, containing additional details about its standards, and the decision rules, used by the Accreditation Committee to differentiate their different possible accreditation decisions, are not published; the panel recommended that they be published.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	lack of consistent application of criteria for institutional evaluations; lack of criteria for evaluation of study fields
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“With regard to institutional evaluations the panel noted that the application of criteria for outcomes leaves too much room for interpretation and therefore undermines the consistent application of criteria. Considering the agency’s transitioning to evaluation of study fields the review panel further highlighted the need for development of criteria for the outcomes of subject level evaluations.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	lack of transparency in criteria; inconsistency in the application of critera; insufficient documentation for interpretation of criteria
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The review panel identified that some policies that affect ASHE's decision-making are not fully transparent and known by the stakeholders concerned. The panel further referred to some inconsistency in the application of ASHE's criteria and an insufficiency of the reference documents that panels use to interpret the criteria.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by NASM
Decision of	06/06/2016
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	clarity in decision making
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (11/01/2026)
RC decision	Compliance

“The External Review Report did not address in detail the clarity and transparency of the decision-making process in those cases where the MusiQuE Board’s decision differs from the experts’ recommendation.The Register Committee considered the clarification received from the Review Panel (Annex 7), explaining that the Panel had analysed the process followed in case the MusiQuE Board requires clarification or disagrees with the recommendation of the experts, and found that process adequate, clear and transparent.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	12/12/2023
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	lack of consistency in the implementation of agency's criteria
Panel conclusion	Non-compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Non-compliance

“Several major inconsistencies were noted by the pane;: (1) the

pre – defined judgements levels were not used by the experts – rather

various judgement terminology was applied in different reports; (2) while

agency’s methodologies have long list of assessment criteria per standard,

they were not addressed in full leading to reports covering different topics;

(3) thorough analysis and evidence were rarely present in the final reports

leading to arbitrary judgements.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/10/2023
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	lack of a body to ensure consistency of outcomes
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“14. The Register Committee understood from the review panel’s analysis that there is no independent commission that reviews and checks all reports and their application across the agency, which may question whether criteria are being applied uniformly.

15. The Register Committee concurs with the panel’s recommendation that QAA should strongly reflect on its approach to ensuring the consistency of outcomes including the potential need to establish an independent commission that validates reports and makes the final decision.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Focused, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/10/2024
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	consistency in implementation of agency's standards
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel noted absence of full coverage of agency's sub-standards in the reports of some of the evaluated bachelor and PhD programmes.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	25/10/2022
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	lack of formal mechanisms for consistency, unclear whether or not consistency improved
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“12. The panel considered critically the lack of formal mechanisms to ensure a consistent understanding and application of the criteria (e.g. guidelines, interpretations or a precedent database made available by GAC).

13. The panel was unable to draw a conclusion whether the post-2018 system – with decisions made by GAC, including the practice to change conditions deviating from the proposal by the expert panels – actually delivered a higher degree of consistency or not.

14. The panel further noted that the current organisation of the Council's work included the risk that analysis of cases might often be “monopolised” in the hands of a single (academic) Council member, while some other Council members are currently not participating in the preparatory work as rapporteurs.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Focused, coordinated by ECA
Decision of	18/03/2021
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	consistency of decisions
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (16/03/2021)
RC decision	Compliance

“12. The panel was convinced that EQ-Arts had “developed a sound approach to guarantee fair and transparent decisions and judgments”; it noted that consistency was ensured by a template with guidelines, the executive officer supporting each expert team and the Board considering each report.

13. [...] In its response, the panel elaborated on the measures taken to ensure consistency and how reviewers are being familiarised with them in EQ-Arts' trainings. The panel explained how it triangulated the information received from the reviewers, the reviewed institutions and the EQ-Arts Board. The panel confirmed that there was a “consistent understanding of procedure and process”. Based on the increased amount of activities, the panel was satisfied that EQ-Arts criteria were applied consistently, irrespective of whether the process leads to a formal decision by the Board.”

Full decision: see agency register entry