Complaint dismissed – soft recommendations on composition and functioning of MQRIC Appeals Board

Complaint dismissed – soft recommendations on composition and functioning of MQRIC Appeals Board

Published October 01, 2025

The complainant – a third country national regularly resident in Malta – first approached the Office of the Ombudsman on 30 May 2025. He complained about the delay in the determination of his appeal, filed before the MQRIC Appeals Board, from a ruling by the MQRIC Unit at the Malta Further and Higher Education Authority (MFHEA) in connection with the requested recognition or level rating of a Bachelor’s Degree obtained by him from a university outside the European Union. 

This complaint was dismissed by the Commissioner for Education on 2 June 2025 as premature.
On 5 August 2025 the complainant again reached out to the Office of the Ombudsman, as he still had heard nothing from the MQRIC Appeals Board. In his Final Opinion, published on 5 September 2025, the Commissioner for Education, after noting that the said Appeals Board had not been constituted for a substantial period of time in 2024, found that some members of the Board had finally been appointed for a term of office of one year in September 2024. Another member was appointed in October 2024. The Board had to deal with a backlog of over 300 pending appeals, with an average of 8 to 10 new appeals per week.
Complainant’s appeal was in fact determined on 11 August 2025.

As the complaint was based solely on the issue of delay, the Commissioner proceeded to dismiss the complaint.

The Commissioner, however, took the opportunity of drawing the attention of the Education Authorities to possible anomalies in the composition of the MQRIC Appeals Board. On the very date of the publication of the Final Opinion – 5 September 2025 – the majority of the members’ appointment, which had been for one year, including that of the secretary to the Board, had technically expired. It was also noted that according to Article 7(4) of the Mutual Recognition of Qualifications Act the members of the Board were to hold office for a period of 3 years, and not one year, and that according to relevant subsidiary legislation it was to consist of three divisions and that no two divisions of the Board were to deal with the same types of appeals – from the evidence received, it appeared that these divisions were unknown to the Board and had certainly not been mentioned in the appointment of the members thereto. 

Finally, the Commissioner for Education noted that for the communication of the Board’s determination to the appellants, pre-set computer templates were used, but that it appeared that no such template catered for a determination or decision upon a point of law from which an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal in its Inferior Jurisdiction.

The Commissioner drew the attention of the Education Authorities to the above “to ensure the seamless continuity of the work of the [MQRIC] Appeals Board and the avoidance of procedural issues in the future”.
This report is being published in term of Article 29(2) of the Ombudsman Act.