Higher Education Appeals Policy and Procedure

Introduction

1. This Policy establishes the procedure governing appeals lodged by Higher Education
providers against formal decisions issued by the Malta Further and Higher Education
Authority (the Authority).

Making an Appeal

2. This policy and its procedure are for the sole purpose of appeals. The Authority makes a clear
distinction between complaints and appeals. A complaint refers to a customer’s experience
related to the services, operations and policymaking standards, whereas an appeal refers to
formal decisions, issued by the Authority pertaining to Higher Education Institutions, and are
dealt with by this policy and procedure.

3. In case of appeals that contain matters which relate to complaints, both the Authority and
the Independent Appeals Committee (the Committee) may refer such matters to be
considered under the complaints’ procedure.

4. If a complaint is submitted concurrently with an appeal, consideration of the complaint will
generally be deferred until the appeal process has been concluded, in order to avoid any
actual or perceived prejudice. In exceptional circumstances, the Committee may determine
that parallel consideration is necessary.

Objective of the Policy

5. Institutions shall retain the right to appeal any formal decision of the Authority, in accordance
with paragraphs 6(a) and 6(b), provided that the appeal is based on one or more of the
grounds specified in paragraphs 8(a) and 8(b).

Classification of Appeals

6a. Appeals related to Quality Assurance Outcomes – An appeal may be lodged against a final
decision or outcome arising from an external quality assurance audit for provider initial
accreditation and renewal of accreditation, programme initial accreditation and renewal of
accreditation, decisions relating to applications for university status, self-accrediting status
and extension of scope or any other quality assurance outcome involving Peer-reviewers
and/or Experts.

6b. Appeals related to Regulatory Decisions – An appeal may be lodged against any regulatory
decision of the Authority that affects the rights or interests of an applicant or provider.

7. The Committee shall determine the appropriate classification of an appeal. Where an appeal
contains both categories, the Committee may consider the grounds together or separately, as
it considers necessary for the fair and efficient determination of the appeal.

Grounds for Appeals

8a. Appeals related to Quality Assurance matters may be lodged on one or more of the following
grounds:

i) the Authority has violated its accreditation processes, such as procedures which were
not consistently applied;

ii) the Peer Review and Expert panel failed to apply the established applicable standards
and procedures;

iii) there is proven ethical concern, i.e. conflict of interest, referring to the Peer Review
and Experts Panel or members of the Quality Assurance Committee (QAC);

iv) the accreditation outcome is inconsistent with the materials and facts presented by
the applicant before and during the accreditation period;

v) the accreditation outcome is not based on and/or supported by sound evidence and
arguments as reflected in the outcome report.

8b. Appeals related to Regulatory Decision may be lodged on the following grounds:

i) a material procedural irregularity in the decision-making process;

ii) a material error of fact;

iii) a material error in the application of the applicable regulatory framework;

iv) a failure to consider material evidence relevant to the decision;

v) the imposition of a manifestly disproportionate regulatory measure.

Matters not subject to Appeal

9. The appeals process is intended to provide a mechanism for reviewing final formal decisions
of the Authority that adversely affect an institution or a prospective provider. The following
matters shall not be subject to appeal:

a. decisions, procedural matters or administrative actions that result in a positive
outcome for the institution;

b. regulatory measures or conditions that are generally applicable and have been
formally established and published by the Authority;

c. preliminary findings or draft reports that do not constitute a final decision of the
Authority;

d. recommendations that do not constitute a final decision of the Authority.

Policy Applicability

10. This Policy applies to applicants for, and institutions holding, a licence issued by the Authority
under any of the following Higher Education categories:

a. Universities;

b. Higher Education Institutions;

c. Further and Higher Education Institutions.

11. For the avoidance of doubt, in the case of applicants or institutions falling under category c,
appeals relating to programmes at MQF Levels 1–4 shall fall outside the scope of this Policy
and shall be lodged in accordance with the Authority’s Appeals Procedure for Further Education.

Submission of Appeals

12. An appeal shall fulfil all the following cumulative conditions:

a. the appeals form shall be filled in Provider-Appeal’s-form.pdf and submitted to this
electronic mail address [email protected] within twenty (20) calendar days
starting from the day after the electronic mail informing the institution by the decision
was sent. Only appeals sent to the above-mentioned electronic mail address, on the
appropriate form and within the given timeframe will be considered; oral appeals will
not be considered;

b. the form shall be filled in by the head of the institution/governing body and must
include their signature;

c. the appeal shall clearly indicate the decision which is being appealed and the grounds
of appeal;

d. the appeal shall include written arguments and evidence to substantiate the claim;

e. such evidence must focus on the specific reason for appeal, including only directly
relevant supporting documentation which shall be clearly labelled and referenced;

f. it is the institution’s responsibility to ensure that the appeal form is completed in a
clear and concise fashion and that all relevant evidence is supplied;

g. the administrative fee related to the appeal is settled in full;

h. the submission must be in English.

Documents for the Independent Appeals Committee

13. For appeals relating to quality assurance outcomes, all evidence and documentation must
exclusively reflect the institutional reality at the time of the on-site visit. Any information,
documentation, or evidence regarding retrospective changes, post-visit remedies, or
subsequent developments will be deemed irrelevant and strictly disregarded in determining
the merits of the appeal. Furthermore information, documents or other evidence not
previously submitted, will not be considered in determining the merits of the appeal.

14. Notwithstanding the above, the Committee may admit additional evidence where it considers
that such evidence is relevant to determining the appeal.

Consideration of Appeal

15. Upon receipt of the applicable administrative fee, the Authority shall refer the appeal to the
Committee in the form in which it was originally submitted, without seeking any clarification,
amplification or additional information from the appellant, for the Committee’s consideration.

16. Where the applicable administrative fee is not settled within thirty (30) calendar days, the
appeal shall be deemed withdrawn and shall not proceed for consideration by the Committee.
Any subsequent request to lodge an appeal in relation to the same decision shall be treated
as a new appeal and shall be subject to the applicable requirements, timeframes and fees.

17. Prior to referring an appeal to the Committee, the Authority shall require each Committee
member to declare any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest arising from
professional involvement with the appellant institution during the preceding five (5) years.

Conflicts of Interest

18. Each member of the Committee shall confirm the absence of any actual, potential or
perceived conflict of interest in relation to the appeal under consideration by completing the
Declaration-Independent-Appeals-Committee

19. The completed form shall be signed and submitted to the Authority within ten (10) calendar
days from the date of the electronic mail by which the Authority requests such declaration.

20. Should any of the members, during the process, be in a situation that could potentially limit
their capacity to make objective and professional judgments, in particular considering the
provisions for conflict of interest as reflected in the Code-of-Conduct-Policy-for-Panel-
Members.pdf the respective member/s shall be redundant immediately. The Authority shall
appoint a replacement from the published pool of Peer Reviewers and Experts for Appeals in
a rotational manner. The Committee may request an extension of the applicable timeframe
from the Authority.

21. The institution shall notify the Authority of any potential conflict of interest concerning a
proposed Peer Reviewer or Expert within ten (10) calendar days from the date on which the
Authority requests such declaration by electronic mail. Any objection on the grounds of a
potential conflict of interest shall be duly justified. The QAC shall determine whether the
declared conflict of interest is justified. Where the QAC determines that a conflict of interest
exists, the Authority shall appoint a replacement from the published Pool of Peer Reviewers
and Experts for Appeals, in a rotational manner.

22. In the event that a Peer Reviewer or Expert is unable to participate in the review of an appeal
for any reason, the Authority shall appoint a replacement from its published pool of Peer
Reviewers and Experts for Appeals, in a rotational manner, ensuring that the composition of
the panel remains appropriate and in line with the applicable requirements.

23. Where an appeal concerns a programme, the Authority shall replace the Peer Reviewer
serving on the Committee with a Peer Reviewer who possesses appropriate expertise in the
relevant subject area.

24. Any replacement Peer Reviewer or Expert shall be subject to the same conflict-of-interest
declaration process. The institution shall also be given the opportunity to identify and duly
justify any potential conflict of interest concerning the proposed replacement, in accordance
with the same procedure and timeframe set out above.

Procedure for Dealing with Appeals

25. Following the conflict-of-interest declarations, the Authority will forward the appeals by
electronic mail to the Committee whose first task shall be that of reviewing the appeal and
the supporting evidence submitted by the institution to determine whether the appeal is
admissible or rejected.

26. The Committee shall determine by a simple majority whether the appeal is admissible or
rejected.

27. The Chair shall have one vote and, in the case of a tied vote, shall also have a casting vote.

28. The Committee shall inform the Authority of its decision by electronic mail within ten (10)
calendar days from the date they receive the appeals by electronic mail. In case of a rejection,
the Committee shall explain the reasons in a report.

29. In case where the appeal has been considered admissible by the Committee, the Authority
informs the institution that the appeal will proceed to the desk-based analysis by electronic
mail within ten (10) calendar days from the date it received the Committee’s decision by
electronic mail.

30. The Authority shall issue an invoice to the institution for the applicable desk-based analysis
fee. The institution shall settle the invoice within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of
issue. Where the applicable administrative fee is not settled within thirty (30) calendar days,
the appeal shall be deemed withdrawn and shall not proceed for the desk-based analysis. Any
subsequent request to lodge an appeal in relation to the same decision shall be treated as a
new appeal and shall be subject to the applicable requirements, timeframes and fees.

31. In case where the appeal has been considered as rejected by the Committee, the Authority
informs the institution by electronic mail and a letter within ten (10) calendar days from the
date it received the Committee’s decision by electronic mail.

32. In cases where the Committee proceeds to the desk-based analysis the following conditions
apply.

Conditions to the Desk-based Analysis

33. The work of and communication between the members of the Independent Appeals’
Committee is facilitated by a Programme Accreditation Coordinator (in case of appeals related
to programmes) or a Provider Accreditation Coordinator (in case of appeals related to
institutions) of the Authority as delegated by the Head of the Higher Education Unit.

34. The Authority shall ensure that the coordinator was not involved in the matter being
appealed.

35. The role of the Coordinator shall be to:

a. provide the Committee and the appellant with the necessary information related to the
appeal and the present procedure;

b. ensure that the judgments and decisions of the Committee are properly recorded; and

c. coordinate the appeals process.

36. The Coordinator shall be present during the oral hearings.

37. The Coordinator shall have no role in the decision.

38. All the desk-based analysis is to be conducted in the English language.

39. The form of the desk-based analysis shall include meetings by the Committee which may take
place virtually or physically.

40. The Committee shall give twenty (20) calendar days to the Authority to submit its response to
the Appeal and submit any documentation as at the date of the impugned decision.

41. The Committee shall convene both parties for oral submissions, which shall take place within
twenty (20) calendar days from the date on which the Committee receives the Authority’s
response to the appeal.

42. The Authority shall be represented by any officers of its choice.

43. The institution shall be represented by the Head of Institution and may be assisted by any
representatives of its choice.

44. The Committee may meet as many times as required both before and after the oral
submissions.

Desk-based Analysis Decision of the Committee

45. The desk-based analysis decision by the Committee is made by a simple majority.

46. The Chair shall have one vote and, in the case of a tied vote, shall also have a casting vote.

47. The decision of the Committee will be enclosed in a written reasoned report formally
submitted to the Authority within four (4) months from the date the institution was informed
by electronic mail that the appeal has been accepted by the Committee, with the possibility
to request an extension of a maximum two (2) months in extraordinary circumstances.

48. The Committee may decide to order the Authority to refund the procedural fee but not the
administrative fee.

49. In case of refund, the Authority shall pay the institution within thirty (30) calendar days from
the date it receives the report by the Committee by electronic mail. Administrative fees are
non-refundable in any case

Final Provisions

50. The Authority shall forward the report to the institution and the QAC by electronic mail within
ten (10) calendar days from the date it receives the report by the Committee by electronic
mail.

51. The Committee’s report shall be made public by the Authority.

52. Once the institution has been informed of the Committee’s decision, the appeals procedure is
completed.

53. The resolution of the appeal is final and may not be the subject of a new appeal to the
Authority.

54. Parties who remain dissatisfied with the decisions of the Committee may seek redress in a
court of Law as established in the law.

55. The Authority is committed to providing the highest standard of service and to operating in a
transparent and accountable manner. This commitment includes responding constructively to
feedback arising from the appeals process. For this reason, the final reports are discussed
during the QAC meetings and any lessons learnt will be formally communicated to those
involved.