Database of Precedents

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Not clearly defined processes for institutional audits offered in Austria
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The review report demonstrates that ACQUIN's external quality assurance processes are clearly defined in public documents, except for institutional audits offered in Austria. The Register Committee concurred with the panel's view that the process should be clearly defined and published despite the low demand. The Register Committee took note of ACQUIN's statement on the external review report, which states that audits in Austria follow the same procedure as system accreditation in Germany. The Register Committee, however, understands from the review report that this is not stipulated in ACQUIN's public documentation. When ACQUIN's registration was last renewed, EQAR had flagged for attention whether ACQUIN’s international accreditation and evaluation activities take place on a clearly defined and transparent basis, within and beyond the EHEA. The Register Committee concluded that this flag has been resolved for ACQUIN's international accreditation activity in general, but not for audits in Austria”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Inadequate and insufficient preparation of experts in system accreditation
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel considered that ACQUIN generally follows common practice in terms of preparation of experts, but remarked critically that ”ACQUIN only ensures a minimum for the preparation for the system accreditation”. The panel specifically noted that the preparation of experts in system accreditation was less intensive compared to other agencies working under the auspices of the German Accreditation Council (GAC). Consequently, the panel recommended that ACQUIN offer at least voluntary trainings or workshops to those experts. The development of ACQUIN's activities for training and preparation of experts was flagged for attention when ACQUIN's registration was last renewed. Considering the assessment by the panel, the Register Committee concluded that practice did not change materially and the issue was therefore not resolved”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	consistency in decision making across different technical committees.
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In the previous renewal of ACQUIN’s registration, EQAR had flagged for attention “ whether measures have been taken to enhance consistency in decision-making across different technical committees”. The panel reported that it had discussed the consistency of evaluations and decisions by ACQUIN in detail during the site visit. The panel established that no structural change had been implemented to improve the situation since the last review. While the report refers to one formal meeting between the chairs of the standing committees in 2014, such meetings do not seem to be institutionalised and regular. Given the assessment by the panel, the Register Committee concluded that the flag was not resolved”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	3.5 Resources
Keywords	human resources planning and estimation of workload
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The review report described that financial losses experienced by ACQUIN have eventually been recovered by reducing activity costs. The Register Committee was able to follow the panel's concerns with regard to human resources planning and estimation of workload. Despite the fact that planning and documentation require improvement, the Register Committee did, however, not understand that the number of accreditation procedures conducted by ACQUIN significantly exceeds its capacity. Moreover, the Register Committee appreciated that an agency operating in a market-based system naturally experiences greater fluctuation than an agency in a monopoly situation”

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	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by NASM
Decision of	06/06/2016
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	consistent follow-up policy
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Review Panel noted that the follow-up procedure is only compulsory for MusiQuE’s accreditation reviews at present.While the Register Committee acknowledged that it is more difficult to impose a follow-up procedure in a voluntary review than an obligatory one, the Committee underlined that MusiQuE is free to design the contractual conditions and requirements for institutions.The Register Committee thus noted the Review Panel’s recommendation that MusiQuE should implement a consistent follow-up policy for all different types of review.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by NASM
Decision of	06/06/2016
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	clarity in decision making
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (07/07/2025)
RC decision	Compliance

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

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by NASM
Decision of	06/06/2016
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	Stakeholer involvement/students
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (07/07/2025)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Review Panel noted that, while the music education sector and the professional field are involved through the nomination of Board members by AEC, EMU and Pearle*, students, alumni and the broader society were not involved in the governance of MusiQuE.According to its statement “Actions undertaken by MusiQuE as a response to the recommendations formulated by the external Review Team”, MusiQuE considered to add a student member to its Board and planned to discuss a selection process at its May 2016 Board meeting.In its clarification (Annex 8), MusiQuE noted challenges related to representation and continuity, and explained that it would invite a student observer to its Board. MusiQuE further noted that it would reconsider this decision in case a European association of music students would be created.Considering the principle of independence, the Register Committee underlined that a student Board member should not be considered a representative of their organisation, but should serve in an individual capacity. Furthermore, while acknowledging that a European association of music students would obviously be desirable for MusiQuE as a direct interlocutor at the European level, the Register Committee did not concur that the absence of such an association is an insurmountable obstacle to appointing a student Board member. Through its own database of student experts, or in contacts with generic student organisations, or national or regional music students' organisations, it should be feasible to identify a suitable student Board member.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by NASM
Decision of	06/06/2016
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Organisational and operational independence
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (07/07/2025)
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee considered it usual and acceptable for one existing organisation, in this case AEC, to be the main initiator and (co-)founder of a new agency. The Register Committee, however, underlined that the requirement of independence should be understood to the effect that the new organisation, once it has been founded, should be able to function and develop independently, as required by the standard.The External Review Report did not specifically address the implications of the proposals for Board members (by AEC, EMU and Pearle*) being binding, whether MusiQuE Board members serve in an individual capacity, and the guaranteed majority of AEC nominees on the MusiQuE Board.In its clarification (Annex 7), the Review Panel considered that the binding nature of nominations to the MusiQuE Board was balanced by the fact that nominees had to be listed on MusiQuE’s register of peer reviewers, which was entirely under the control of MusiQuE and its Board.The Panel had further satisfied itself that MusiQuE Board members serve in an individual capacity and that their strategic thinking and orientation was independent, dedicated to the mission and values of MusiQuE. The Panel noted that it did not detect any allegiance of Board members to the nominating organisations.The Review Panel explained that it had considered the majority of AEC nominees a strength, given that they were typically leaders of study programmes in music, had the strongest expertise in relation to quality assurance and thus MusiQuE’s work. Notwithstanding the strong expertise brought by AEC nominees to the MusiQuE Board, the Register Committee considered that their structural majority might nevertheless affect MusiQuE’s independence. The matter would thus have deserved specific attention in the External Review Report, including a more elaborate explanation how the Panel considered that MusiQuE’s independence is safeguarded despite the decisive influence of one single organisation on the membership of its governing body.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by NASM
Decision of	06/06/2016
Standard	3.5 Resources
Keywords	financial sustainability
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The External Review Report reported that the initial costs for the setup of MusiQuE were borne by AEC, as its main founder. At the time of the review – MusiQuE did not have a sufficient amount of contracts or firm agreements with higher education institutions that would fully assure its ability to achieve self-sustainability.MusiQuE submitted the statement “Information on the financial sustainability of MusiQuE”, which included an update on the number of reviews planned and contracted for the years 2016 and 2017, as well as a financial commitment by AEC, EMU and Pearle*, for the years 2016 and 2017, applicable in case MusiQuE will not achieve self-sustainability. Beyond that, further support would be at the discretion of the organisations’ boards.The Register Committee considered that the financial commitment ensured MusiQuE’s equipment with sufficient resources for 2016 and 2017, while sustainability from 2018 onwards remained dependent on the number of reviews MusiQuE was able to carry out in practice.The Register Committee further underlined that MusiQuE is expected to make a Substantive Change Report (see §6.1 of the EQAR Procedures for Applications) in case its resource situation changes materially.”

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

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	inconsistency in implementation of the process; unclear definition for cases where there is no site visit.
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The review report noted that on-site visits are not mandatory in evaluations (type 1) and recommends that ASIIN should establish clear principles to state in which cases on-site visits are not necessary. Given the current absence of such principles, the Register Committee considered that ASIIN did not comply with the requirement to normally include a site visit. In its additional representation, ASIIN specified that site visits were a mandatory element in all type-1 evaluations. While the Register Committee welcomed the clarification, it underlined that the clear implementation in practice cannot be assessed at this stage; it should thus be subject of the next external review of ASIIN. The review report further identified cases where ASIIN did not follow the principles established in its own policy regarding the use of evaluation results for programme accreditation. The Register Committee took note of ASIIN’s statement on the report, which confirms that fact but does not include an explanation or rationale for departing from the policy. The Register Committee therefore considered that ASIIN did not implement its own processes consistently in all areas. Despite the fact that ASIIN stated in its additional representation that this was “one case among hundreds of procedures” and announced that it was planning to amend its own policy to the effect that a prior evaluation result could be used, provided is is not older than 2 years, the Register Committee noted that ASIIN's current policies were not always followed in practice, even if this was so in only very few cases.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	(non-local) student involvement
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee took note of the explanation in ASIIN's additional representation of its policy and efforts to recruit “local” students, i.e. coming from the same country as the institutions under review. The Committee noted that the participation of students nationally and internationally was increased “to practically 100%”. The Register Committee noted that there was only one case reported where no student could be recruited for the panel. The Register Committee, however, underlined that it would not be compatible with the ESG to use the policy in the sense that only a local student can be appointed. That is, if no local student can be recruited for whatever reason, ASIIN is obliged to involve a non-local student, rather than no student at all.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	No possibility to appeal in cases where the review does not end in a judgment
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Committee noted that for the accreditation procedures the appeals procedure is regulated in the statute and in the board of complaints’ rules of procedure but that there is no clearly defined appeals procedure for evaluations and other external QA procedures not resulting in a formal decisionIn the additional representation, ASIIN explained that it had clarified that its regular complaints procedures, applicable to accreditation procedures so far, is also applied to certification procedures and in type-1 evaluation procedures. The Register Committee confirmed that this is indeed clarified in public documents.”

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	clear distinction between different types of activities
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“When confirming eligibility of the application, the Register Committee requested (see letter of 26/2/2016) that ASIIN demonstrates how it ensures a clear, consistent and transparent separation between activities within the scope of the ESG and others, in particular in its public communication and where similar terms are being used, such as in the case of “type 1” (ESG) and “type 2” (non-ESG) evaluations. The review panel considered that ASIIN needs to further clarify the distinction between “type 1” and “type 2” evaluations. In particular, the panel recommended that ASIIN should no longer use the term “evaluation” for type 2 evaluations, but rather define those as consultation services internally and externally. The Register Committee considered ASIIN's Statement on the review report, noting that third parties tend to use the term “evaluation” for such services. While this might well be the case, the Register Committee could not see how that would prevent ASIIN itself from avoiding the term “evaluation” in its own communication, e.g. on its website. The Register Committee further noted the Statement on the review report does not explain how ASIIN would ensure transparency and a clear distinction despite insisting on using the term “evaluation”. Having considered the additional representation, the Register Committee considered that the distinction between the two types of evaluations is now better presented on the ASIIN website. The Register Committee noted that ASIIN, however, continued to use the word “evaluation” for type-2 evaluations, against the panel's recommendation, arguing that “the term is not restricted to uses as falling under the scope of EQAR”. ASIIN was furthermore “convinced that the distinction between the two types and the fact that type 2 evaluations do not fall under the remit of the ESG, and of EQAR, is very transparent on the ASIIN website”. While the Register Committee recognised that presentation and clarity have been improved, the Committee considered that it remains to be seen whether the presentation is sufficiently clear in practice, in particular in terms of ensuring that all those evaluations that are by their nature within the scope of the ESG are carried out as type-1 evaluations and in compliance with the ESG.”

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
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The review panel considered that the ASIIN newsletter and the annual meetings only partially fulfil the requirements of the standard. The panel noted that the newsletters do not include an analysis of finding ascertained by ASSIIN in its own work. While the annual meetings might address the type of issues to be covered by thematic analyses, the panel noted that there was no specific documentation with summary analyses resulting from those meetings. The Register Committee took note of ASIIN's Statement on the review report and the additional representation. While referring to a number of valuable initiatives and publications, the Committee considered that many of those rather represent internal feedback mechanisms or approaches to ensure consistency in decision-making. While some of ASIIN's newsletters and publications contain elements of thematic analyses, there are currently no regular published analyses which fully respond to the requirements of this standard.The Register Committee further underlined that the standard is not entirely new, but succeeded the standard “system-wide analyses” of the ESG 2005, which, despite its name, applied to all registered agencies already in the past.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	Formalisation and efectiveness of Internal quality management system
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Coordinator (07/07/2025)
RC decision	Compliance

“In its additional representation, ASIIN noted that it had formalised its internal quality management system and fully implemented its new QM manual. The Register Committee sought and received clarification from the German Accreditation Council (GAC), as the coordinator of the external review of ASIIN. GAC confirmed that it had assessed the implementation of ASIIN's QM structure as part of assessing fulfilment of a condition. In doing so, GAC found that the QM system was appropriately formalised and implemented effectively.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Alignment of the ECCE’s criteria with the ESG Part 1
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (07/07/2025)
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee further noted that the standards have not been amended following publication of the revised ESG and that no specific mapping or analysis was carried out on how ECCE’s criteria and procedures address ESG Part 1. Based on its own analysis and interviews carried out, the panel concluded that Part 1 of the ESG was “transversally” reflected within ECCE’s standards. The Register Committee requested the panel to further elaborate on this matter. In its response letter (of 15/11/2016) the panel stated that the focus of the analysis was the link between external and internal QA and that this was well established. The panel further added that “whilst it could not be demonstrated on a one to one basis that the standards 1.1 - 10 were addressed, the panel satisfied itself that the link existed”. In the additional representation, ECCE provided a mapping of the link between the ESG Part 1 and its own standards. The Register Committee considered the mapping and noted that standards 1.1 – 1.10 are addressed in the agency's criteria and processes for institutions/programmes.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Independence of the review panels
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The panel stated that the agency’s conflict of interest procedure has not been addressed since the agency’s initial review. The analysis of the panel showed that ECCE’s procedure lack clear criteria with regards to areas of possible conflict of interest and that this has led to unsatisfactory choices of experts in a number of reviews carried out by ECCE. The panel further expressed concern regarding the presence of an evaluation secretary from ECCE’s staff within each expert panel. In its additional representation ECCE stated that it has nominated two non-chiropractic experts to evaluation panels and that it has de-centralised the secretary function, so that there is a separate secretary for each review. The Register Committee noted that ECCE has made steps to address the independence of its review panels. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	consistency and clarity of the criteria
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel’s analysis showed that the agency’s criteria are unclear with regard to the period of institutional accreditation. The accreditation is given for a period of up to five years, but there is no specification in which cases the accreditation period will be shorter than five years. In its clarification to the additional representation (letter of 02/05/2017) ECCE stated that it had developed a “Compliance Table” and a list of the critical standards to assist panels as well as institutions to understand the expectation of each standard. ECCE expects to formally adopt this practice at their general meeting in November

2017. While the Register Committee acknowledge ECCE’s plans of a new set of criteria to ensure consistency and clarity in the application of criteria, the Committee noted that the agency has neither published the ‘Compliance Table’ nor formalised this practice.”

Full decision: see agency register entry