Database of Precedents

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/09/2018
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	OK. Part 1 reflected in one of the agency’s external QA
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In the last review of ANECA, the Register Committee flagged for attention the processes and criteria used in the ACCREDITA programme and how they take into account the existence and effectiveness of internal quality assurance in line with Part 1 of the ESG. The Register Committee considered the panel’s detailed accounts of how ANECA ensures the meeting of this criterion in all its procedures, including the international projects it has engaged in and noted that the regular review and assessment of the effectiveness of the procedures provided re-assurance and certainty to stakeholders on the quality of higher education in Spain”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/09/2018
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	EQA processes that include: self-assessment, site visit,
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In ANECA’s last review, the Register Committee flagged for attention the implementation of the key elements of the standard i.e. self-evaluation, site visit in the development and implementation of the ACCREDITA programme. The panel’s evidence and analysis show that since its last review ANECA has revised the ACREDITA procedure, which now includes: a self-evaluation stage, a revision by an assessment committee during a site-visit, and a report providing guidance for the actions taken by the institution.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/09/2018
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	No publication of initial reports and only publication of summary reports for programme accreditation
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (09/06/2018)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel stated that ANECA does not publish initial review reports prepared by the assessment panels (of 50-60 page long) and that the agency only publishes a final summary report (of 10 pages). he panel stated that publication of summary reports from programme accreditations is a national characteristic and that the panel confirmed during interviews that the AUDIT and DOCENTIA activities include full reports when published. The Register Committee could only verify the panel’s statement regarding the full publication of institutional evaluation reports for DOCENTIA, but not in case of AUDIT procedures. While the Register Committee understands the usefulness of providing summary reports, the Committee saw no reasons why ANECA would not be able to also publish the full results for all its external quality assurance procedures.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/09/2018
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Availabily of appeals for monitoring procedures
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (09/06/2018)
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee also noted that appeals are not made available in case of MONITOR procedure […]. The review panel stated as the activity has a supportive /developmental nature and that no decisions are taken on its basis no appeals can be issues. The panel noted that it had discussed the complaints (and appeals) procedures with key stakeholders, who expressed their satisfaction with the functioning of the processes and confirmed that the agency considered all appeals and complaints according to its policy and within a reasonable time-frame.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/09/2018
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	separation of consultancy and EQA activities, addressing international activities as activities within the scope of the ESG
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (31/07/2018) Panel (09/06/2018)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel noted that in its understanding all international activities of ANECA were advisory in nature whereby ANECA acted essentially as a consultant/project partner and did not carry out external quality assurance activities (evaluation, accreditation, audits) abroad. The panel did not provide any further information on how the agency ensures a clear distinction between external quality assurance and its other fields of work. The agency provided a detailed report on its international activities, explained and that they follow similar procedures to that of the AUDIT and ACCREDITA evaluations carried out in Spain and confirmed they are within the scope of the ESG. Tthe Register Committee could now verify the publication of criteria for evaluation and the publication of all (summary) reports of the international activities. The Committee acknowledged the steps taken by ANECA to clarify the nature of its international activities, but noted that these activities were not considered by an external review panel (in particular in considering compliance with ESG Part 2). The Register Committee further noted that it could not analyse with full certainty how the agency separates its external QA activities within the scope of the ESG from the consultancy projects it carries out.”

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	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/06/2018
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Consistency and transparency in decision making
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“ Having evaluated the procedures for decision making by Quality Assessment Council for Higher Education (HEQAC), the panel concluded that the standard for consistency and transparency in decision-making has received considerable attention and improvement since the last review.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/11/2017
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Involvement of students in external review process
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its decision of inclusion, the Register Committee flagged the involvement of students in all external review expert groups.The panel’s findings showed that students participate in all SKVC’s expert teams for all types of evaluations, whether in Lithuania or abroad. In its interviews the panel also learned that students were not always involved equally in the external review process, an issue that was mostly depended on the chair of the team (Review report pg. 36).The Register Committee noted that SKVC involved students in all its reviews and has therefore addressed the flag. he Committee nevertheless underlined the panel’s recommendation that SKVC could play a more supportive role in ensuring that students participate as equal members in all panels.”

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 decision of inclusion, the Register Committee flagged the decision-making processes of the agency for accreditation and the practice in which accreditation decisions are taken by a single person (the Director).The panel noted that accreditation decisions are taken by the SKVC director upon advice of one of the two advisory commissions. In the view of the panel the role of the advisory commission should be limited to checking the reliability of the outcomes of the evaluation, leaving the final decision to the director to avoid unnecessary costly and complicated processes.The Committee nevertheless underlined the panel’s recommendation concerning the improvement of the agency’s criteria for programme accreditation with more elaborate definitions of its scores.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/11/2017
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Publication of reports
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its decision of inclusion, the Register Committee flagged the publication of reports corresponding to applications by new programmes and new licensing requests. The panel’s finding show that the evaluation reports for programme and institutional evaluations are published and accessible on the SKVC website, including the accreditation decisions (p. 40).”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/11/2017
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Absence of a complaints procedure
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“While the Register Committee noted that appeals’ procedures are well defined, accessible and handled adequately, the Register Committee noted that SKVC’s methodologies and principles do not cover complaints.The panel did not find how higher education institutions can raise issues of concerns or how they are handled by SKVC in a professional and consistent manner.The Committee underlined the recommendation of the panel for the development of a specific complaints procedure that should be made easily accessible to higher education institutions.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/11/2017
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	Separation of external QA and consultancy activities
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee noted that SKVC provides consulting to both the government and higher education institutions. While the panel found that SKVC’s methodologies and guidelines clearly delineate its tasks and responsibilities, the panel stated that SKVC could benefit from reducing its guidance role in producing self-evaluation reports and in offering detailed and demanding rules and regulations for higher education. the Committee underlined that SKVC is expected to demonstrate a clear separation between its external quality assurance and its consulting and guidance role, in particular considering the agency’s assistance in producing self-evaluation reports. The Committee drew SKVC's attention to the guiding principles set out in Annex 5 to the Policy on the Use and Interpretation of the ESG.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/11/2017
Standard	3.5 Resources
Keywords	financial sustainability
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In its decision of inclusion, the Register Committee flagged the financial arrangements and sustainability of SKVC’s overall activity.The panel’s analysis showed that these concerns remain due to a wavering financial situation and decrease of project funds.The Register Committee noted the panel’s analysis that the financial arrangements remain uncertain and have not been adequately addressed within a realistic financial plan”

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	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/11/2017
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Readability and publication of reports
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee flagged for attention the readability of NVAO’s published reports considering its defined target audience (decision of renewal of 1/12/2012).The panel’s analysis show that NVAO does not have specific guidelines for organizing the content of the report. Whilst these reports can be considered clear by an expert readership, readability is generally hindered by the heterogeneity of style, which is less “user friendly” to a large public, in particular by students and employers.The Committee underlined the recommendation of the panel that NVAO should analyse the actual and potential readership of its reports and their needs, and to develop new means to reach its target readership among students and employers.The panel also noted that at least 10 percent of the reports and decisions made in 2016 were not publicly available. The agency explained that the publication of reports was delayed due to a temporary lack of personnel and that this issue has been fixed. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/11/2017
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Absence of a formal complaints procedures
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (09/07/2025)
RC decision	Compliance

“In its analysis the panel found that the procedures on appeals against decisions are well designed but noted that the agency “lacked a solid and formal comprehensive complaints procedure, even if some elements of complaints-handling are there and informal handling of complaints by NVAO normally suffices”.The Register Committee sought further clarification from the panel concerning the extent to which the ability of NVAO to handle complaints might be affected.The panel explained in its response letter that the comments to NVAO were intended to highlight that the complaints procedure could be more clearly defined and communicated. The panel also learned that NVAO took the panel’s recommendation following the review and developed a comprehensive complaints procedure.The panel confirmed that NVAO’s regulations on governing principles include indications to both complaints and “remarks”. Stakeholders, such as panel members, staff or students, may report to NVAO matters arising during the assessment process that could affect the independence of the assessment.The Register Committee noted that NVAO’s system of appeals is well developed and that the review panel was satisfied with NVAO’s processes for handling complaints.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	Publishing of the criteria for international institutional accreditation
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (09/07/2025)
RC decision	Compliance

“The review panel noted that AQAS's criteria for international institutional accreditation were not published at the time of the review. The Register Committee took note of AQAS' statement on the review report and that AQAS now published the criteria for international institutional accreditation on its website. The Register Committee further noted that AQAS published the criteria without the additional “indicators”, which illustrates what is covered by a criterion. The Committee sought and received clarification by the review panel as to whether it considered publication without the “indicators” as sufficient. The Register Committee took note of the explanation that due to plagiarism and copyright infringements experienced in the past, AQAS published the criteria without additional, detailed material, while the “indicators” were made available to institutions applying for accreditation.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	distinction between accreditation and consultation not fully publicly documented
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“When confirming eligibility of the application, the Register Committee requested AQAS to clarify the relation between AQAS e.V. and AQAS ARCH, as well as the separation of external quality assurance procedures from consultancy services. The Register Committee took note of the clarification that AQAS ARCH did not engage in any activities within the scope of the ESG, but was engaging only in consultancy and project work, and welcomed the clarity provided. The Register Committee further welcomed AQAS' clear statement that it agreed “that the work of an accreditation agency in a particular procedure, be it programme or institutional accreditation, is incompatible with a preceding (or current) consultancy at the same university” and that “this incompatibility naturally includes organisations which are connected operationally with the agency” (statement on the review report); consequently, “AQAS e.V. cannot accredit the same organisation that received consultancy services through AQAS ARCH GmbH” (idem). The review panel, however, noted that these principles do not seem to be clearly documented in a published official policy document of AQAS and thus recommended that “AQAS should, in form of the formal resolution, define the distinction between accreditation and consultation, between ESG and non-ESG activities and between AQAS and AQAS ARCH” (review report, p. 12).

The Register Committee concluded that AQAS was able to explain that it appropriately separates its different areas of activity, while the details and consequences of this separation are not yet fully publicly documented.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	3.4 Thematic analysis
Keywords	systematic approach to analyses and publishing
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“When AQAS last had its registration renewed, the publication of thematic analyses was flagged. Considering the review report, the Register Committee concluded that AQAS carried out a number of relevant internal analyses and produced relevant reports, e.g. the overarching report produced based on its accreditations in Moldova. These were, however, carried out on an ad-hoc basis, internal and not published as required by the standard. In its statement on the review report, AQAS explained that it had published a first set of thematic analyses on its website. While the Register Committee welcomed the efforts taken to date, it was not yet possible to conclude whether thematic analyses are produced regularly.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/11/2017
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Publication of ex-ante reports with negative decision
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In its last renewal decision (of 1/12/2012), the Register Committee flagged for attention AQU’s policy of not publishing negative validation reports, as well as the readability of reports for their target audience, in particular students and potential students.The Register Committee noted that AQU has made efforts to offer consistent, structured, and helpful reports of its quality assurance activities to a larger public through a number of portals with outcomes translated in Spanish and English.The Register Committee further noted that AQU publishes all reports except those from ex-ante evaluations that result in a negative accreditation decision.AQU explained that publishing these reports would have a negative impact on universities and society. In its statement to the review report, AQU further added that, since these programmes can not be offered by universities, it would be confusing for readers to find information on a course that will never exist.The Register Committee considered the agency’s explanations, but underlined that according to its Policy on the Use and Interpretation of the ESG (p. 7) all reports should be published, including any formal decisions based on these reports, irrespective of the outcomes of such reports.While the Register Committee acknowledged AQU’s efforts to improve the readability and accessibility of reports for its target audience the Committee concluded that the flag has only been partially addressed, since AQU still does not publish all reports. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry