Database of Precedents
-
2.6 Reporting – CTI – Compliance (2024) Publication of full reports
CTI
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 02/07/2024 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of full reports Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “10. In the previous decision for renewal of registration (of 2019-11-05), the Register Committee found CTI to be partially compliant with the standard as it only published summary of evaluation reports which lacked important details from the full reports.
11. From the external review report, the Register Committee learned that a new template, which includes the full report, was introduced. Furthermore the Committee understood from the analysis of the panel, since 2019, CTI started publishing in full all of its reports.
12. Having addressed the earlier concern regarding publication of full reports, the Register Committee concurred with the panel’s conclusion and found that the agency now complies with the standard. The Committee, however, underlined the panel’s recommendations that the agency ensures that the reports are more analytical, their clarity and soundness are improved as well as their visibility on the agency's website.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – ACCUA – Compliance (2024) publication of reports, negative
ACCUA
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
-
2.6 Reporting – ACSUCYL – Partial compliance (2025) Quality of reports, lack of publication of negative reports
ACSUCYL
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
-
2.6 Reporting – AIC – Compliance (2025) transparency, piblication of reports
AIC
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
-
2.6 Reporting – BAC – Partial compliance (2025) Quality of reports; publication of negative reports
BAC
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
-
2.6 Reporting – AQUA – Partial compliance (2025) publication of experts reports, quality of reports,
AQUA
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
-
2.6 Reporting – MusiQuE – Partial compliance (2025) Publication of full reports
MusiQuE
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 18/11/2025 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of full reports Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “10. 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 lack of publication of the reports resulting from the Critical Friend visits.
11. The Register Committee found from the review report that in order to address this concern, MusiQuE made adjustments to its publication policy. MusiQuE now creates and publishes summaries of findings from the individual Critical Friend reports together with the final review report by the external panel. However, the reports are only published in full if permitted by the evaluated institution.
12. While the Register Committee commended the steps taken by the agency to address the issue, it reaffirmed that the agency is expected to publish all full reports prepared by the experts covering the complete evidence and analysis. Publication of summaries of the Critical Friend reports is not sufficient. Therefore, the Register Committee was unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion of compliance and concluded that MusiQuE complies only partially with ESG 2.6.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – SKVC – Partial compliance (2022) lack of consistency, unclear understanding of multi-level compliance scale
SKVC
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
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – AVAP – Partial compliance (2023) Undocumented mechanisms for ensuring consistency
AVAP
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 (21/04/2026)
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
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – IQAA – Partial compliance (2022) Criteria for decision making are not published
IQAA
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
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – AHPGS – Compliance (2020) transparency of criteria
AHPGS
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
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – SQAA – Compliance (2019) clarity of the criteria for assessment
SQAA
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
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – EAEVE – Partial compliance (2018) consistency in decision making
EAEVE
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
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – NVAO – Compliance (2017) decision making
NVAO
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
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – ANQA – Partial compliance (2017) criteria not published fully
ANQA
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
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – HCERES – Partial compliance (2017) lack of consistent application of criteria for institutional evaluations; lack of criteria for evaluation of study fields
HCERES
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
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – ASHE – Partial compliance (2017) lack of transparency in criteria; inconsistency in the application of critera; insufficient documentation for interpretation of criteria
ASHE
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
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – MusiQuE – Compliance (2016) clarity in decision making
MusiQuE
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 (21/04/2026)
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
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – IKCA – Non-compliance (2023) lack of consistency in the implementation of agency's criteria
IKCA
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
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – QAA – Partial compliance (2023) lack of a body to ensure consistency of outcomes
QAA
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