*Note: Τhe abovementioned standards have been adopted by CYQAA’s Council during its 8th Summit (18 and 19 July 2016) and are used by the External Evaluation Committees for the external evaluation of Medical and Health related Programmes at Bachelors and Masters level, in addition to the criteria included in form number 300.1.

Individuals or organisations that have substantiated concerns about an accredited institution’s/department’s/programme’s compliance with the Agency’s external evaluation criteria and/or the ESG and/or the WFME standards may bring those to CYQAA's attention.  The scope of complaints extends beyond the above and encompasses the opportunity to address grievances pertaining to the manner in which a review is conducted or concerns regarding the processes implemented by the agency itself. These complaints can be filed by various stakeholders, including students, faculty members, staff, or any individuals directly or indirectly affected by the higher education institution or the agency overseeing its operations.

The following steps will be followed:

1. The CYQAA Council shall consider whether a complaint is substantiated. A complaint will only be considered if it is credible, substantiated, and supported by appropriate evidence, references, examples etc. The complaints may only relate to an accredited institution’s/department’s/programme’s compliance with the Agency’s external evaluation criteria and/or the ESG and/or the WFME standards, or the integrity of the external evaluation process on the basis of which CYQAA provided accreditation to the said institution/department/programme. Concerns regarding national legislation, European Union law, or any other applicable rules shall be addressed with the competent courts or authorities.
2. If the complaint is not substantiated the CYQAA will take no action on the complaint and inform the complainant accordingly.
3. If the complaint is substantiated CYQAA will inform the higher education institution of the complaint and will ask the institution to provide clarifications or information related to it.
4. If the complaint is substantiated but relates to an isolated case and does not substantially affect the institution’s/department’s/programme’s compliance with the abovementioned standards, the CYQAA Council shall issue a formal warning to the institution. The warning does not affect the accreditation status of the institution/department/programme. A formal warning statement is published on the entry of the institution/department/programme on the Agency’s website.
5. In the case the complaint is substantiated and leads to major concerns that the accredited institution/department/programme no longer fulfils the criteria upon which accreditation was granted, the CYQAA Council shall examine, through the audit procedure, whether the Accreditation criteria continue to be met according to article 17(3)(g) of the legislation.
6. In the case the audit procedure further substantiates the complaint and leads to major concerns that the accredited institution/department/programme no longer fulfils the criteria upon which accreditation was granted, the CYQAA Council may decide to:
   • revoke the Accreditation decision, or
   • initiate an external evaluation process of the institution/department/programme.

In the scenarios (5) and (6) the higher education institution is invited to make representation before a final decision is made. The final decision is then communicated to the institution and the complainant and it is published. 

The scope of complaints extends beyond the above and encompasses the opportunity to address grievances pertaining to the manner in which a review is conducted or concerns regarding the processes implemented by the agency itself. These complaints can be filed by various stakeholders, including students, faculty members, staff, or any individuals directly or indirectly affected by the higher education institution or the agency overseeing its operations.