Database of Precedents

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/10/2024
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	no site visits, inconsistency,
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“20. The Register Committee learned from the analysis of the panel that only the EQA Audit process is clearly outlined in the audit manual. For the rest of the activities, both the information provided to the panel as well as the publicly available documents, were not always consistent.

21. The Committee noted the panel’s concerns on a number of shortcomings related to the programme and provider accreditation

procedures, such as short application forms instead of self-evaluation reports for some procedures, no site-visits (see also ESG 2.2) and lack of consistent follow-up.

22. In its statement on the report (of 2024-05-20), MFHEA informed that the discrepancies between the documents and the shortcomings related to programme and provider accreditation procedures have been further addressed in the revised manuals for programme and provider accreditation procedures, which have been in use as of January 2024 for provider accreditation procedures and will be, respectively, as of January 2025, for programme accreditation procedures.

23. The Register Committee took note of the revised manuals but could not confirm whether and how these changes are implemented in practice.

24. In its additional representation, the agency reaffirmed that the concerns raised by the Committee for provider accreditation procedures have been addressed in the new Provider Accreditation Manual and the concerns for programme accreditation procedures will be addressed in the new Programme Accreditation Manual.

25. The Register Committee took in consideration the actions taken by the agency in order to address the concerns raised by the panel and the Register Committee. The Committee, however, could not confirm how these changes have been implemented in practice without a panel insight and found that some of them are yet to be implemented. Therefore, the Committee could concur with the panel that the agency complies only partially with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	14/03/2025
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Difficulties in verifying that all procedures are pre-defined and published
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“16. The Register Committee understood that although ANVUR generally implements all stages of the review (self-assessment, site visit, report, follow-up), there are certain exceptions: site visits are not mandatory in the initial (ex ante) accreditation while the follow-up of the newly accredited institutions is only conducted via the periodic assessments.

17. The Register Committee learned from the analysis of the panel that ANVUR is lacking a comprehensive and published description for each external quality assurance procedure that would serve as an overarching guide (see also ESG 2.2). Due to this, the agency cannot ensure that its external QA processes are pre-defined and published, which could further endanger the consistent implementation of these processes and of their individual phases.

18. In its additional representation, ANVUR demonstrated that since the site visit, the agency published a Manual which comprehensively compiles, describes and explains all external QA activities of the agency in detail.

19. The Register Committee could verify that now ANVUR’s procedures are pre-defined and published, and was able to concur with the panel’s conclusion that ANVUR complies with ESG 2.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Site visits; Lack of structured follow-up
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“14. In panel’s view the site visits of the activity European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes are insufficient in both duration and depth. Specifically, the interviews during the site visits were only limited to teaching staff and management, while the site visits were held online, preventing the reviewers from assessing the infrastructure of all institutions and other relevant contextual information.

15. Furthermore, the Register Committee noted that the procedure does not include a structured follow-up mechanism and is based on a permanent exchange of documents between the agency and institutions.

16. In its additional representation, ACSUCYL explained their plans to address concerns regarding the format of the site visit and to align the procedure and methodology of the new activity with the requirements set out in the agreed European framework of the European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes.

17. The Register Committee welcomed ACSUCYL’s plans but noted that they remain to be implemented and externally reviewed. Therefore, in light of the existing deficiencies in site visits and unstructured follow-up mechanisms for the European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes, the Committee concurred with the panel’s conclusion that ACSUCYL is partially compliant with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	follw-up
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“9. The Register Committee learned from the panel analysis that all of the activities include a self-assessment, an external evaluation and an external evaluation report, but there is no consistent follow-up for accredited programmes.

10. In its statement to the report, the agency informed that it plans to adapt its follow-up procedures following the legal changes that prescribe mandatory follow-ups. Furthermore, AQUA informed that following the planed changes the first mandatory follow-up evaluations are expected to take place in

2028.

11. The Register Committee, took note of the steps taken and welcomed the planned actions in order to introduce mandatory and consistent follow-up for accredited programmes. It, however, found that these changes are yet to be introduced and implemented in practice by the agency. The Register Committee therefore concurs with the panel that AQUA complies only partially with ESG 2.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/03/2023
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	involvement of students, regular expert trainings
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (11/01/2026)
RC decision	Compliance

“The Committee could further verify that all AVAP commissions now

include a student representative in the review for all types of procedures, including the authorisation of new programmes. The role of the student member has been redefined and that the administrative role of student in the Panel (including the different assignment for each panel member) is now removed. The Committee noted that the protocols clearly set out that students are

equal panel members in the review and reporting process. AVAP also set out a regular training of

experts and that one such session was carried out in early February.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Focused, coordinated by ECA
Decision of	18/03/2021
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student involvement
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“9. The review panel's report contained no analysis of the factors that led to that departure from EQ-Arts' own policies, but confirmed that all reviews since December 2018 have included students (8 reviews in 2019 and 1 in 2020); the panel further elaborated on EQ-Arts approach to recruiting and training experts.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/03/2023
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Lack of meaningful involvement of students in panels
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“ECAQA involves a variety of stakeholders in the composition of panels, including students. The Committee learned that, in practice, the student reviewers were not always offered the training provided for the other panel members – such conditions made their involvement in some of the reviews nominal in the panel's view.The Register Committee found that despite the formal involvement, ECAQA's approach did not ensure meaningful participation of students in all review panels”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/12/2021
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Strength of the training for reviewers
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The training for experts relies mainly on sending materials to the experts and their self-

preparation and group briefings at the beginning of the review”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	15/10/2021
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Involvement of students in panels
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee learned that the absence of student

members in the panels in the two activities is due to the specificity of the

processes; the procedures focus on quantitative indicators on teaching

offering and the human, material and financial resources. The Committee, however, understood that the process goes beyond a

purely technical check of numbers, as it generally involves other experts also

making a qualitative assessment. The Committee could not agree with the

panel’s conclusion that the “student perspective could not add any value” in

those procedures and considered that the students’ views could offer an

important insight into the matters under observation in both activities”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	22/06/2020
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student involvement
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (11/01/2026)
RC decision	Compliance

“The review panel noted that “when the nature of the assessment in question so requires, every effort is made to include non-academic experts [...] as well as students who are experienced in quality assessment in higher education“ (ERR, p. 39). As the Register Committee found the analysis unclear as to whether students are consistently involved in all ACSUCYL’s review panels, the Committee asked the panel for further clarifications. The panel explained that all evaluation procedures within the scope of the ESG include one student member. The panel further added that students are regarded as equal members of peer review expert panels.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Panels composition
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its 2016 decision on QQI's Substantive Change Report, the Register Committee flagged for attention the composition of QQI expert panels.The Register Committee noted that some specific QQI processes do not use traditional expert panels, but are based on desk assessments or dialogues by QQI staff, followed by subsequent decisions where applicable. The Committee noted that the decision-making bodies include all perspectives that are otherwise required to be on a panel.The Committee further noted that wherever panels are deployed their composition complies with the standard. The Register Committee therefore concluded that the flag was addressed and concurred with the panel's conclusion that QQI complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Involvement of students in panels.
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its previous decision the Register Committee flagged CTI’s involvement of students in some of its review panels. The Register Committee noted that CTI works together with the French engineering students’ association, to ensures that CTI systematically nominates student experts in all its regular programme evaluations. The review panel also confirmed that in its CeQuInt evaluations, CTI’s panel include among its four experts also a student. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Panels composition
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (06/06/2019)
RC decision	Compliance

“The review panel learned that in cases where expert panels are employed for follow-up and case-based monitoring procedures their composition is not clearly defined. The Register Committee therefore asked the agency for further clarifications. The agency explained (see letter of 06/06/2019)) that its guidebook on follow-up procedures define the composition of panels for both follow-up and case-based monitoring procedures. The agency stated that it ensured that a student representative is included in the composition of the expert panel for both procedures.The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel’s judgment that NCEQE is compliant with ESG 2.4.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Involvement of students in review committees
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In the previous review this standard was flagged due to the fact that the regular involvement of students on all review committees was yet to become practice.The Committee noted that steps have been taken in order to ensure regular involvement of students. Participation of students in evaluation procedures isguaranteed by the Basque Country Act 13/2012.The Register Committee therefore concluded that the flag has been addressed and concurred with the panel's conclusion that Unibasq (substantially) complies with the standard”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	06/12/2018
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student involvement in pilot procedures
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that there was no systematic inclusion of students in all expert groups for initial, paper-based accreditation as yet, but that the inclusion of students in these expert groups was currently piloted.[…] the Register Committee concluded that the flag has only been partially addressed so far, pending the pilot advancing to become a full regular part of the process.. The Committee further noted that there were no students included in the panel for the pilot on Combined Education and Research Evaluations, but appreciated that the panel was confident that students would be involved in case this activity became permanent.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/06/2018
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Nomination of students in expert panels
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (30/05/2018)
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee, however, noted that there might remain a residual risk of influence as long as higher education institutions could de facto exercise a veto right in the nomination of students to the NEAA pool of experts. While not impeding the agency's compliance with the standard (nor with standard 3.3) the Register Committee consider that NEAA should be mindful of that issue (also in regard to operational independence under standard 3.3).”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Involvement of external experts
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its decision of inclusion Register Committee flagged the involvement of external experts in initial accreditation.The Register Committee noted that the accreditation panels of AI now include at least three members and consist of professional experts with higher education experience and a student for each procedure. ”

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	student involvement
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The review panel confirmed that students are now engaged in all AEQES evaluation panels, as full members of the panels, except for follow-up evaluations.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/03/2023
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Student involvement in panels
Panel conclusion	Non-compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (14/02/2023)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“Further efforts made by the

agency to engage students in the review panels - in particular

students have participated in the first reviews by the time the Register Committee analysed the application. While the panel’s

conclusion of non-compliance did reflect accurately the situation at the

February 2022’s site visit, the Committee concluded that the agency is now

partially compliant with the standard. The Committee, however, underlined

that further evidence of the actual involvement of the students in the panels

will be needed and has to be thoroughly analysed in the next review of HAHE”

Full decision: see agency register entry

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

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

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

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

Full decision: see agency register entry