Database of Precedents

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	07/02/2022
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	training of experts & pool of experts limited
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel noted that FIBAA uses several videos and Power Point presentations to provide training for the experts, but critically remarked that there is not a face-to-face training and no clear obligation for experts to undertake such a training (or supervision on it) prior to an accreditation or certification procedure. The training is done on a voluntary basis. The review panel also underlined that the training materials for the English-speaking experts may not be as comprehensive as those received by German-speaking experts.

In its analysis the review panel also noted that the number of international experts in the pool of experts to be rather limited given FIBAA’s international profile and that there is minimal rotation and renewal among the experts.

Considering the above mentioned shortcomings, the Register Committee cannot follow the panel’s conclusion on (substantially) compliant but finds that FIBAA complies only partially with ESG 2.4.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	07/02/2022
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	publication of all reports
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“14. In its last decision, the Register Committee noted that a number of programme accreditation reports have not been published by FIBAA and concluded that the agency at that time complied only partially with ESG 2.6. In response to the recommendation made in the previous review, the Register Committee learned that FIBAA is now publishing both the positive and negative reports on accreditation and certification processes from national as well as international activities, on its website.

15. The Register Committee therefore agreed with the panel’s conclusion, that FIBAA complies with standard 2.6.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	07/02/2022
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Rudimentary nature of appeals procedure
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“16. In its last decision, the Register Committee underlined the panel’s observation that there is no clear indication on whether higher education institutions can issue a complaint regarding the course of the procedure. The Committee also remarked at that the appeals procedure is documented only rudimentarily, with little or no explanation on the issues that could be raised under the appeal, no provision on the expected timeline to process a complaint, publication policy etc.

17. In its review report, the panel stated that higher education institutions may submit complaints about the conduct of the process writing an email to FIBAA and that FIBAA has established a procedure for appeals.

18. The Register Committee learned that FIBAA’s appeals procedure only applies to the procedures where the agency is awarding its seal and it does not cover the reviews where GAC is the decision-making body. Since higher education institutions may have concerns related to the application of the criteria and the judgments also in the reports prepared for the GAC, these should equally be subject to appeal in line with the standard.

19. The Register Committee further noted that FIBAA’s appeals procedure date back to December 2016, and has not been updated since the agency’s last review. The Committee found it surprising that the review panel has not addressed any of the issues the Committee raised in its last decision regarding the rudimentary nature of FIBAA’s appeals procedure and only commented on the wording of the process for complaints and appeals (that should be clarified).

20. In light of the above observations the Register Committee cannot follow the panel’s judgement of (substantially) compliant, but find that FIBAA complies only partially with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	07/02/2022
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	student involvement in governance, lack of periodic and multi-annual Strategic Plan, a clear distinction between external quality assurance and its other fields of work
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (11/07/2025)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“21. The panel found that in general stakeholders are involved in the work of the agency, but commented that there is no student representative on the Foundation Council and that FIBAA should consider broadening its stakeholders to include, for example, members of committees from outside of FIBAA’s circle of ‘customers’.

22. The panel also remarked that FIBAA does not have a periodic and multi-annual Strategic Plan but that the strategic goals are considered during the Council’s last meeting in the year. The review panel noted that the consideration of strategic matters takes place as and when necessary, but still in a highly informal process. The Committee concurs with the view of the panel that the current strategic planning process, should be further developed to ensure that it also considers the medium to long term future of the agency.

23. While the review panel confirmed that FIBAA has in place a strict separation between its consultancy services and external QA activities within the scope of the ESG, the Register Committee noted that this separation was not clear in the case of FIBAA’s Evaluation Procedures According to Individual Objectives (see also point 5 above).

24. The Committee underlined that agencies are expected to take appropriate precautions to prevent any conflicts of interest arising from the consultancy activities they carry out, as indicated in Annex 2 to the EQAR Policy on the Use and Interpretation of the ESG.

25. Considering the shortcomings of involving students in FIBAA’s governance and the lack of a comprehensive Strategic Plan and the separation of consultancy and external QA procedures, the Committee cannot follow the panel’s conclusion of (substantial) compliance but finds that FIBAA complies only partially with standard 3.1.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	07/02/2022
Standard	3.4 Thematic analysis
Keywords	structured approach in carrying out of thematic analysis, limited work carried out
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“26. The panel critically remarked that FIBAA does not seem to collect in a systematic way information on programmes and institutions and that the agency does not produce an overview of the outcomes of it external QA activities.

27. The panel also noted that workshops on topics related to quality assurance and resulting studies are mainly organised by FIBAA Consult. While the panel is of the view that FIBAA should reconsider the assignment of such activities to FIBAA Consult, the Register Committee disagrees and underlines that the standard does not limit the carrying out of thematic analysis by a unit of the agency or the possibility to subcontract this work to an external body.

28. The Register Committee however agrees with the panel’s conclusion that FIBAA should ensure a structured approach and allocate more resources to the planning and carrying out of thematic analysis on a systematic basis.

29. Considering the limited work in producing thematic analysis, the Committee concurs with the panel’s conclusion that FIBAA complies only partially with ESG 3.4.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ASIIN
Decision of	28/06/2022
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	scope of the ESG, EQF level 5/short cycle, partial qualifications, alternative providers, QF-EHEA as decisive reference point
Panel conclusion	Non-compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (11/07/2025)
RC decision	Non-compliance

“10. The external review panel noted that ECTE accredits institutions and programmes which belong to the “category of post-secondary courses/programmes” and which – in the panel's view – “are not covered by the ESG”. In particular, the panel refers to programmes such as Certificates1 in Theology, Diploma2 in Theology or the Postgraduate Certificate3 in Theology according to Appendix A of ECTE's Standards and Guidelines (see p. 15 of the review report).

11. In its response to EQAR's clarification request, the panel noted that it was “obvious for the panel that both the ESG and EQAR registration only cover formal tertiary education at bachelor and master level (levels 6 and 7 EQF)”4.

12. ECTE – in its standards – portrayed a “Certificate” as a partial qualification at/within EQF level 5 and a “Diploma” as a short-cycle, EQF level 5 qualification. In principle, short-cycle qualifications at EQF level 5 can be considered as part of the QF-EHEA. Moreover, the ESG generally cover higher education in its broadest sense and can also be applied to provision that is not part of a programme leading to a formal degree. [...]

14. Given that EQF level 5 and provision outside full formal degree programmes is not per se excluded from the scope of the ESG, the Register Committee confirmed this in the tripartite Terms of Reference.

15. The Register Committee considered that the distinction made by the panel between accreditation of higher education within the scope of the ESG and “post-secondary education” outside the scope of the ESG cannot be derived from the Terms of Reference, nor from ECTE's own presentation of its work. [...]

28. In the case of an alternative provider, the quality assurance procedure carried out by an EQAR-registered agency might be the only occasion to externally verify whether the education offered by the alternative provider is indeed at higher education level in terms of its learning outcomes. Therefore, the Committee found that attention to ESG Part 1 and in particular ESG 1.2 with its requirement that the qualification resulting from a programme should refer to the correct level of the Qualifications Framework for the European Higher Education Area (QF-EHEA) are of crucial importance in the domain of alternative providers.

29. Given that ECTE accredits a large number of alternative providers (see also under ESG 3.1) the Register Committee underlined that ESG 2.1 was a particularly crucial standard; it sought to ascertain that criteria are robust, fully aligned with the QF-EHEA and applied stringently in all cases, so as to protect the label and designation of what will be perceived as “higher education”.

30. With a view to the discussion on scope above, the Register Committee understood that the review panel clearly did not confirm whether ECTE's criteria for Certificate in Theology, Diploma in Theology and Postgraduate Certificate in Theology are correctly aligned with the QF-EHEA. As noted above, the quotes provided by ECTE from its Certification Framework cannot replace an external panel's analysis of the alignment in theory and practice.

31. As the Register Committee considers the accreditation of such programmes fully pertinent to the application (see above), this necessarily leads to a conclusion of non-compliance with ESG 2.1 as well.

32. The QF-EHEA further expects that students “have demonstrated knowledge and understanding in a field of study” upon completion of their studies. In general, ECTE's standards state that “theology” was the field of study they refer to. [...]

35. ECTE generally refers to the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF) in its framework and communication. While the Register Committee saw this as a legitimate choice, the Committee underlined that the analysis and formal assessment in respect of ESG 2.1 always need to refer to the QF-EHEA descriptors as a benchmark, given that the QF-EHEA is the framework adopted by the EHEA and referred to in ESG 1.2.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ASIIN
Decision of	28/06/2022
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	scope of the ESG, alternative providers, transparency of provider status, use of Bachelor and Master by alternative providers, need for clear distinction
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (11/07/2025)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“39. The ESG cover “higher education in its broadest sense, including that which is not part of a programme leading to a formal degree”. The ESG do not specifically limit what "higher education" means and explicitly include education that does not lead to a "formal degree".

40. The Register Committee therefore considers that the scope of the ESG needs to be determined by the quality and level of the education provided, not the legal status of the provider. That is, if an alternative provider offers learning opportunities with learning outcomes at higher education level, as defined by the QF-EHEA descriptors (see discussion under 2.1 above), the ESG can be considered applicable as a framework for the provider's quality assurance. [...]

42. In general, the ESG are underpinned by an expectation of utmost transparency; in turn, information that could be misleading, in particular for (potential) students, should be avoided. EQAR's Policy on the Use and Interpretation further specifies that the Register Committee should be guided by EQAR’s overall mission of ensuring transparency and trust when applying the standards.

43. Under ESG 3.1 it is expected that quality assurance agencies distinguish clearly and transparently between their external QA within the scope of the ESG and other activities. In line with the overall goal of transparency, the Register Committee applies the same principle to different types of accredited providers with a clearly different status and formal recognition; a lack of transparency about the status of different providers would bear the risk of confusing potential students as well as others, and might raise false expectations as to the status and recognition of credentials earned from those providers.

44. The guidelines to ESG 3.6 further reflect the expectation that an agency “establish the status and recognition of the institutions with which it conducts external quality assurance”. In view of the overarching goal of transparency, the Register Committee expects that agencies not only establish, but also make clear publicly the status of the different types of providers they work with.

45. In the interest of avoiding confusion and upholding the credibility of the education system, the Register Committee thus expects that the difference between formally recognised higher education institutions, awarding formally (nationally) recognised qualifications, and alternative providers must be absolutely clear for stakeholders and the general public.

46. The possible “dichotomy of national versus international, professional accreditation”, referred to by the panel in its clarification, cannot be a reason to accept unclarity or confusion about a provider's formal status. The Committee would consider it incompatible with the principles of the ESG if international, professional accreditation were to contribute to such unclarity or confusion. [...]

48. The Register Committee noted that a number of alternative providers accredited by ECTE used the terms “Bachelor” or “Master” for their education offer. The QF-EHEA employs these terms for officially recognised degrees. In the vast majority of EHEA jurisdictions, these terms are legally protected, similar to terms such as "university", "university college" or "higher education institution". Equally, in the public eye these terms are understood as implying formal recognition as a higher education institution.

49. The Register Committee therefore considers that the use of these terms by alternative providers is not acceptable unless it can be explicitly demonstrated that an alternative provider may legally use those terms.

50. ECTE's standards specified that “Programmes that are not recognized by national authorities should ensure that the qualification nomenclature that is used is appropriate and not in breach of protected terminology” (B.2.1, p. 27) and further that “If the qualification is not recognised by competent national authorities, this should be specified.” (B.5.1, p. 39)

51. It remained unclear to the Committee how stringently these provisions were verified or enforced in practice. In its response to the clarification request, the panel did not provide any further details. Given that the terms “Bachelor” and “Master” are typically legally protected, neither the fact that “ECTE's international experts from the field [...] are checking compliance with professional standards” (clarification by the panel) nor the fact that some of “ECTE’s members cannot or do not want to obtain a national recognition” (idem) give clear reassurance that the institutions in question use those terms legally.

52. The Register Committee considered that the unrestricted use by ECTE of the terms “Bachelor” and “Master” for alternative providers significantly reduced transparency and blurred, rather than clarified these providers' status. [...]

55. The fact that the majority of ECTE-accredited providers are alternative providers underpins the importance of ensuring that not only ECTE's own communication is clear, but also that ECTE ensures – through its respective standards and their stringent application – that the accredited providers themselves live up to the same level of clarity about their status.”

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	13/12/2021
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Consistency in the content and publication of the reports
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The agency publishes its reports on the website. The panel noted that, however, the structure of the reports and their publishing was not always consistent and that for some procedures the reports included summary information only. In their response to the review report, the agency explained that it now uses a template provided by GAC which enables a better structured and

standardised reporting. The agency is currently updating its database and

tackling the technical issues leading to an inconsistent report publishing. The Register Committee found that the agency has taken concrete

steps to address the issues related to the consistent drafting and publishing of its reports”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/12/2021
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	Weak management of staff development and not addressing earlier flags
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“Partial compliance due the need for a more structured management of the professional development of the staff and the lack of a comprehensive response to the issues raised in the previous external reviews (i.e. instances of partial compliance from the previous renewals of the registration: the training of experts (ESG 2.4) is still weak (a concern raised in 2011) and the publication of thematic analyses (ESG 3.4) remains not systematic (a concern raised in 2016).)”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	14/03/2022
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	monitoring expert training, experts trained by other agencies
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“19. In addition,the review panel noted that the proportion of experts who take part in training had increased, but not sufficiently in the panel's view. The panel also considered that the process for recruitment and selection of experts was largely informal.

20. The Register Committee welcomed the newly introduced systematic monitoring of experts' training and prior experience, as explained in ZEvA's representation. The Committee agreed that ZEvA may of course rely on experts who were previously trained by other agencies operating in Germany.

21. At the same time, the Committee considered that 50% was not a very ambitious goal for the share of formally trained experts. Moreover, the Committee had some doubts whether prior experience should be considered entirely equal to a formal training.

22. While the Register Committee welcomed that the involvement of students was now ensured and that ZEvA is taking steps to enhance the formal training of experts, the Committee considered that the level of formal expert training remained weak to date. The Register Committee was therefore unable to concur with the panel, but considered that ZEvA only partially complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	14/03/2022
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	responsibility to publish reports also when not submitted to GAC
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“23. The Register Committee concurred with the panel's conclusion that ZEvA complies with the standard; the Committee further underlined that ZEvA is responsible to ensure that all reports are ultimately published on its own website and on DEQAR, including those that are never submitted to GAC by the institution under review.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	14/03/2022
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	requirement that appeals can be made against any report
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“25. The Committee underlined that any report is a formal outcome and thus needs to be open to appeal, even if it does not result in a yes/no decision.

26. In its additional representation, ZEvA clarified matters for evaluation reports. At the same time, it remained unclear whether and how institutions can appeal accreditation reports before submitting those to GAC. Even though GAC offers an appeals possibility, presumably GAC's process cannot fully investigate matters that are rooted in the report produced outside of GAC's direct control. Moreover, it would be unreasonable that institutions are forced to first submit to GAC a report against which they have strong objections before they can appeal against that report.”

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	27/06/2022
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Lack of formal complaints procedure; Appeals limited to negative decisions only
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The institutions undergoing a review by FINEEC are limited to make an appeal only in a case of a negative

outcome.That the remarks on the review process are given in an informal manner.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	15/10/2021
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Lack of formal complaints procedure and appeals' procedure
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The appeals process remains to be led by an external body. The agency is not handling any formal complains or appeals itself.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	15/10/2021
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	Weak involvement of stakeholders in the governance of the agency
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (28/09/2021)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“AI has no advisory or governing board, nor any other strategical decision making body (hence lacks stakeholder involvement in the governance of the agency).”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	15/10/2021
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	Informal approach to IQA; Not addressing flags from previous review
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“AI has adopted an overall framework for internal QA, which is publicly available. The panel, however, found that agency’s approach to internal QA is often informal and flexible. This was reflected in the self-evaluation report,

which the panel found to be lacking self-reflexivity and deeper analysis of agency’s internal needs. The Register Committee noted that the agency has not addressed the issues that led to a partially compliant conclusion in the

previous decision for renewal of registration (namely ESG 2.7 and ESG 3.1).”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2021
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Incomplete coverage of Part 1 of the ESG
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel noted that AAQ does not cover ESG 1.3 (Student-centred

learning, teaching and assessment) and covers ESG 1.2 (Design and

approval of programme) only partially in the criteria for institutional

accreditation. These standards are only fully covered in programme accreditation,

which is voluntary except for health professions. As institutional

accreditation is the core activity of the agency and the only mandatory

external quality assurance for all Swiss institutions, it should assure full

coverage of ESG Part 1 by itself.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2021
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	Using feedback for improving methodologies
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee welcomed the diverse methods used by the agency

for gathering feedback from different stakeholders, but could

not confirm that the reflections are efficiently and systematically used in the

improvement of the activities. The findings indicate that the

feedback is only sporadically used in the improvement of the agency’s

external QA activities.”

Full decision: see agency register entry