Database of Precedents

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/11/2024
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	ESG Part 1
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (29/08/2023)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“8. In its last decision for renewal of registration (of 2020-03-16), the Register Committee found that VLUHR QA only partially fulfilled the requirements of the standard, as the ESG Part 1 was not sufficiently addressed in the main activities of VLUHR QA.

9. The Register Committee understood from the panel report that, since the last review, VLUHR QA has started employing a new framework for assessing programs in Flanders, which consists of eight quality features (QF). The new framework is stipulated by Flemish decree and must be implemented by the QA agencies evaluating programmes in Flanders.

10. The Register Committee learned from the panel analysis that the new quality framework still does not directly address certain elements of ESG 1.1, ESG 1.2 and ESG 1.4. There is no explicit mention that institutions must have a public quality policy (ESG 1.1) or processes for programme approval (ESG 1.2); nor it is addressed explicitly that “the internal processes of the university to ensure the monitoring of support processes for students at all stages of the lifecycle” (ESG 1.4).

11. The Register Committee also learned that VLUHR QA has addressed the missing elements only in the Guide for drawing up a self-evaluation report for higher education institutions. These elements are not covered in the Manual Programme Review, the main document followed by the external reviewers.

12. While the Register Committee understood that the new Flemish Framework addresses ESG to a higher extent than the previous one, the absence of ESG 1.1, ESG 1.2 and ESG 1.4 in the Framework and in the Manual raises concerns about the possibility of them being overlooked during the assessment. Therefore, the Register Committee found that VLUHR QA only partially complies to the standard and highlighted the panel’s recommendation on including the content of the Guide for drawing up a self-evaluation report in the Manual Programme Review.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Focused, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	18/11/2025
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Systematic inclusion of ESG Part 1 standards
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (17/06/2025)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“1. In its decision of 2023-12-12, the Register Committee found IKCA to be partially compliant with ESG 2.1, noting that while ESG Part 1 was formally addressed in the agency’s standards, its implementation in practice, as evidenced by review reports, was inconsistent.

2. The Register Committee learned from the panel’s analysis that the challenges identified in the previous review have persisted. In particular, while the agency's methodologies reference ESG Part 1 standards, these are not consistently addressed in both institutional and programmatic accreditation reports. This is especially evident in the coverage of ESG 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.9 within the agency’s reports.

3. Beyond the issue of systematic inclusion of ESG Part 1 standards in the agency’s review reports, the Register Committee also requested clarification from the panel on whether the ESG Part 1 standards are sufficiently included in the agency’s sets of accreditation standards: general, medical field and pedagogical field, since the panel only mapped the pedagogical field standards against the ESG Part 1. The review panel explained that, since no standards were changed or removed for general or medical accreditation, repeating the ex-ante mapping was deemed unnecessary and such a mapping was thus only conducted for the pedagogical field.

4. In view of the panel’s findings and the clarification provided on the inconsistent inclusion of ESG Part 1 standards in the agency’s review reports, the Register Committee concurred with the panel’s conclusion and found IKCA to be partially compliance with ESG 2.1.”

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

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	22/06/2020
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	stakeholder involvement in the development of methodology
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (18/08/2026)
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee was unclear how the agency has developed its accreditation criteria and whether stakeholders were involved in the design of AKAST methodologies and has therefore asked the panel for further clarifications. The panel explained that Germany’s new legal framework defines the procedures for QA agencies carrying out their accreditations within Germany and that the German Accreditation Council (GAC) is entrusted with overseeing this process. The GAC has issued reporting templates and defined the structure of review reports as well as self-evaluation reports for higher education institutions, following the criteria established in the Specimen Degree, which follow the ESG.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/06/2018
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	flexibility of the accreditaiton system
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“While concurring with the panel's conclusion that NEAA complies with the standard, the Register Committee underlined the suggestion by the panel that NEAA should explore ways to make the accreditation system more flexible.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	fitness for purpose of doctoral schools EQA
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“Considering the fitness for purpose of external QA processes, the Register Committee noted the panel’s concerns with the effectiveness of the practice of evaluating doctoral schools every six months. In its additional representation HAC explained that the biannual checking of compliance with criteria for doctoral programmes has now been discontinued and that a new approach and criteria have been developed, which are expected to be finalised in autumn.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	involvement of stakeholders (students)
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel’s analysis showed that while IAAR involved a range of stakeholders in the ongoing review of the agency’s methodology, the panel found no evidence that student representative bodies had been consulted. The panel added that student involvement in IAAR’s relevant consultative and decision-making bodies was minimal.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	stakeholder involvement
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The review report demonstrated that, based on the national legislation as the main framework, AEQES has developed its own methodological framework, procedures and criteria in consultation with the key stakeholders”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	12/12/2023
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	weak involvement of stakeholders in developing methodologies
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“in practice there is an absence of systematic approaches to involving broader stakeholders in the

developing, updating and reviewing of its methodologies. For example, the Expert Councils, which should act as advisory boards for the development of the methodologies, are not fully embedded in the agency’s consultations and

improvement processes. The councils do not include students”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	14/03/2025
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	Fitness for purpose difficult to fully assess due to dispersed methodologies
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“15. At the time of the review the methodologies were dispersed across different documents including ministerial decrees, other regulatory documents, and procedural guidelines, making it challenging to find information on each of the activities in a comprehensive manner. While the Register Committee could follow the panel’s conclusion that the agency complies with the standard it highlighted the panel’s recommendation that the agency should more explicitly define and consistently publish the purpose and aims of each of its external quality assurance activities.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	Stakeholder involvement in developing methodologies
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“12. The Register Committee learned from the external review report that even though the agency generally involves stakeholders in its work, they were not directly involved in the consultation process regarding the national protocol for the activity European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes.

13. While the Register Committee could follow the panel's view that the agency is compliant with the standard based on its general practice of involving stakeholders in the design of its methodologies, the Committee followed the panel’s recommendation and emphasised that this practice should be employed in the development of all of the agency’s methodologies, without exemption.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	25/10/2022
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	no ownership or full responsibility resting with a single actor, consequences for improvement
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (05/10/2022)
RC decision	Compliance

“9. The panel noted that no actor had ownership or full responsibility for the entire accreditation system and process, since the specimen decree appoints specific responsibilities to both GAC and the agencies.

10. The Register Committee sought further clarification from the panel as to how that impacted continuous improvement and development. The panel noted that opportunities for improvements were discussed actively; the ongoing review of the Specimen Decree was an example of that. The panel, however, saw a lack of GAC itself assuming a more proactive, coordinating role and taking responsibility for the system as a whole; this would be reasonable given its unique and pivotal position.

11. The Register Committee concluded that continuous improvement seems to be ensured despite the distributed responsibilities and thus concurred with the panel's conclusion that GAC complies with standard 2.2; the issues related to GAC's role and strategy are considered under standard 3.1 below.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	22/06/2020
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	Clarity of activities; lack of stakeholder involvement in the development of methodologies and criteria;
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“Considering the design of AKKORK’s methodology of external QA procedures, the panel noted that the aims of the different activities were not clearly differentiated and that there were inconsistencies between the different language versions of the AKKORK ‘s website (English and Russian). In its additional representation the agency responded that it has made revisions to the information on its website. While the Register Committee could verify the publication of the procedures, the Committee further noted that the agency also has ‘on offer’ the activity quality assurance of educational programmes on the level of higher education and remains to demonstrate that the activity has been defined and designed to achieve the objectives set for it, as required by the standard. The panel further commented on the lack of involvement of external stakeholders, apart from the representatives from its own bodies, in the design and continuous improvement of the offered procedures. The agency commented in its additional representation that it has developed a Regulation on collaboration with partners designed to be implemented in AKKORK’s daily routine. The Register Committee welcomed the thorough work in the development of a cooperation regulation with stakeholders, but could not confirm that the Regulation is already in effect as no evidence of the stakeholders' engagement was provided for in the recent substantive changes introduced by the agency. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	Involvement of students in developing the international accreditation and evaluation processes.
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that the processes and criteria for evalag’s work outside of the German accreditation system are designed by the Foundation Board. Based on the analysis by the review panel the Committee understood that students have little involvement in designing evalag’s own processes and are also not involved in the Foundation Board (see p. 30).The involvement of students in developing the international accreditation and evaluation processes was a recommendation from the previous ESG review of evalag in 2014, but has not yet been addressed.While the Register Committee welcomed evalag’s commitment expressed in its statement on the review report, no changes have been made as yet. The Committee was therefore unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion of substantial compliance, but considered that evalag only partially complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	06/12/2018
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	clarity and consistency of standards, decision-making procedure
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee shared the view that NEAQA’s standards would benefit from a revision to ensure full clarity, consistency and readability, in particular in what concerns the employment of site-visits in programme accreditation procedures. The Register Committee concurred with the panel's analysis as regards the arrangement whereby NEAQA’s members combine their decision-making function with that of external experts and with the recommendation to separate these functions. In its additional representation the agency stated that the inherited regulations, procedures and standards of CAQA were revised considering the panel’s concerns and the new by-laws. According to NEAQA particular attention was devoted to ensuring the broader inclusion of external reviewers and the separation of review experts from other member and staff positions in the organisation.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	overlaping and duplication of processess
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its decision to admit ASHE to the Register, the Register Committee had flagged the need to review ASHE's different processes with a view to avoiding duplication. The Register Committee noted that the review panel remained concerned about different ASHE processes addressing the same or very similar issues. Moreover, the panel appeared to be concerned that the new processes for re-accreditation of doctoral programmes and the possible future processes related to the Croatian Qualifications Framework (CROQF) might even lead to further duplication.The Register Committee therefore concluded that the flag was not addressed and remains a matter deserving the urgent attention of both ASHE and the Croatian Ministry of Science and Education, being responsible for the legal framework of the external quality assurance processes implemented by ASHE.

The Register Committee concluded that all processes deployed by ASHE in themselves are fit for purpose and were developed in line with the standard, while the overlap and duplication identified by the panel is primarily the result of the typology of external quality assurance processes prescribed by law, the Register Committee was nevertheless able to concur with the panel's conclusion that ASHE complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	fitness for purpose of IQA’s methodology
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“Considering the fitness for purpose of the agency’s metholodogy, the panel identified a number of shortcomings i.e. lack of a regular review of the agency’s methodology, blurring of boundaries between the agency’s different functions (such as the preliminary review processes and the post-accreditation monitoring process).

In the analysis the panel further underlined the need to shift the responsibility for quality from the agency towards the institution and that the current procedures might be impeding such development. While the Register Committee considered the agency’s statement to the review report, noting the phasing out of preliminary reviews and the clarification regarding post-accreditation reviews, the Committee concluded that the achieved fitness for purpose of IQA’s methodology needs to be externally reviewed.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	stakeholder involvement
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“While the panel finds that in general AI’s methodologies are designed to ensure quality and relevance for all higher education institutions, it underlined that the agency does not give recommendations following a positive programme accreditation or a negative decision for institutional accreditation.The panel further noted that “methods are defined and designed to ensure that the aims and objectives for external quality assurance are achieved methodologies are fit for purpose” and that “AI put more emphasis on the developmental dimension of external quality assurance.” Considering the analysis of the panel the Register Committee formed the view that the developmental dimension of external quality assurance has been sufficiently well integrated in AI’s external quality assurance procedures. The panel stated that AI doesn’t have a proactive role in the involvement of stakeholders in the design of new procedures. As stakeholder involvement is nevertheless ensured in the consultations on new procedures initiated by the Ministry and Accreditation Council, the Register Committee concluded that this requirement of the standard is met.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by NASM
Decision of	06/06/2016
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	stakeholder involvement/students
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee noted that higher education institutions, teaching staff and professional musicians participated in the development of MusiQuE’s methodologies and processes through their representative organisations Association Européenne des Conservatoires, Académies de Musique et Musikhochschulen (AEC), European Music Schools Union (EMU) and Pearle*-Live Performance Europe.The Review Panel found that students and representatives of the broader society were not involved in the initial development of MusiQuE's procedures. The Register Committee learned from the clarififcation provided by MusiQuE (Annex 8) that a Student Working Group has been established as part of the EU-funded “FULL SCORE” project, which is now involved in the further development of MusiQuE's methodologies through MusiQuE’s annual calls for feedback.the Register Committee noted that it will require attention whether MusiQuE’s ways of consulting students are sustainable and permanent.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	student involvement; public information on criteria used
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The review report noted that ASIIN’s certification committee did not currently include a student member. The Register Committee therefore considered that the involvement of stakeholders in the design and decision-making process was not fully ensured as required by the standard. The review report noted that only criteria that comply with the ESG can be chosen for evaluations (type 1). The report, however, noted that this was not made clear to the public. The Register Committee further noted that it was not explained in detail how this is verified by ASIIN. The Committee therefore considered that the requirement of external quality assurance processes being defined and designed to ensure their fitness for purpose was not complied with as regards evaluations. The Register Committee was able to verify that a student member was appointed to the certification committee, as noted in ASIIN's additional representation. The Register Committee further noted that ASIIN had clarified in its public information that the criteria in type-1 evaluations, including those of third parties, must be compatible with the ESG.”

Full decision: see agency register entry