Μake us preferred on Google The recent decision of Greece’s Council of State to annul the operating licenses and study-program approvals of three foreign university operations—linked to York, Keele and Anatolia—is an important setback for the country’s new higher-education reform. But it is not a rejection of the legislation allowing foreign universities to operate in Greece. The government has stressed that the ruling concerns the implementation of the new institutional framework, not the principle of the reform itself.
That distinction matters. The real question is whether Greece has built the regulatory and institutional capacity needed to assure quality in this new sector.
Three issues for the regulatory framework
Reporting on the decisions highlights three important issues in the implementation of the framework.
First, in two cases, the court found that formal confirmation of compliance with building and facility requirements had not been completed after deficiencies were identified. Second, the composition of a Hellenic Authority for Higher Education (HAHE) evaluation committee raised a potential conflict-of-interest concern involving one evaluator’s relationship with the institution being assessed. Third, the Council of State found that the criteria used for program certification were not specified with sufficient quantitative and qualitative precision.
These findings should not be read as a judicial assessment of the academic quality of York, Keele or Anatolia themselves. They point instead to weaknesses in the process by which quality, compliance and independence were demonstrated and verified.
These are not merely technical defects. Together they identify three foundations of credible regulation: clear standards, independent assessment and verified compliance.
Quality Is More Than a Program
The institutions involved are foreign university operations, in some cases working through Greek partners. Their international reputation is valuable, but it cannot substitute for an independent Greek regulatory process demonstrating that education delivered in Greece meets the required standards.
A university is more than a curriculum. Quality depends on the capacity to deliver it through qualified staff, effective academic governance, appropriate facilities, learning resources and adequate support systems.
Australia offers a useful point of comparison—not because its private providers are equivalent to Greece’s new foreign-university operations, but because both systems face the same fundamental question: how is quality assured when institutions are given the authority to deliver higher education?
Australia’s national higher-education regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), provides a useful example. Its regulatory framework treats facilities and infrastructure as part of a provider’s capacity to deliver quality education, requiring facilities to be fit for the activities undertaken and adequate for students and staff.
The principle is simple:
A program should not be approved independently of the capacity to deliver it.
This is particularly important when a foreign university works through a local partner. Delivery may be shared, but academic accountability cannot be outsourced. The foreign university remains responsible for the quality delivered under its name.
And infrastructure is only part of the equation. Quality also requires independent academic governance capable of continuously testing whether the institution is actually delivering what it promises.
Academic governance is the first line of assurance
The Australian lesson is that the regulator cannot carry the entire burden of quality assurance. TEQSA expects effective academic governance to provide independent scrutiny, monitor academic risk and promote continuous improvement. At many institutions, this responsibility rests with an Academic Board or equivalent body.
And independence begins with a simple question:
“Is there a conflict of interest?”
Potential conflicts should be declared and appropriately managed before decisions involving courses, appointments, partnerships or other matters in which members may have a personal, financial or professional interest. TEQSA applies the same principle to its external assessors.
That is particularly relevant to the Greek case. The Council of State’s concern about an evaluator’s relationship with the institution illustrates why independence must be established before assessment, not questioned after the decision. Quality cannot be assured through periodic regulatory checks alone; it must be continuously challenged and monitored within the institution itself.
An effective academic board should therefore ask:
Are the standards clear? Is the assessment independent? Is there a conflict of interest? Do we have the staff, facilities and systems to deliver what we promise?
That is the bridge between accreditation and continuing quality assurance.
Protecting students—and the reform
The Greek response should be neither regulatory haste nor regulatory paralysis.
Where deficiencies are genuinely remediable, there should be a transparent pathway to compliance. But compliance must be demonstrated before students are exposed to the consequences of an inadequate approval. Students and families are making significant educational and financial commitments; government approval therefore creates a reasonable expectation that both the institution and the regulatory process can be trusted.
The principle should ultimately extend across higher education. If clear standards, independent assessment and demonstrable capacity to deliver are essential for non-state universities, they should be equally fundamental to public universities. Quality should not depend on an institution’s legal status; it should be a condition of the public trust placed in every university.
The Council of State’s decision should therefore be used to strengthen—not undermine—the reform. The lesson from Australia is not that Greece should copy TEQSA, but that credible quality assurance requires clear standards, independent academic scrutiny, appropriate infrastructure, continuous institutional self-assurance and effective external regulation.
A university may bring its brand and academic reputation, but it cannot outsource responsibility for the quality delivered under that brand.
The institution must assure the quality of what it delivers.
HAHE must independently verify compliance.
The courts must remain able to scrutinize the process.
That is how Greece can turn the opening of its higher-education system into a credible and sustainable reform—not simply a change in legislation.
Dr. Steve Bakalis is a specialist in international and higher education, with experience across Australia, the Asia-Pacific and the Arab Gulf. He has held senior academic and administrative roles and served on academic boards, with expertise in higher-education governance, quality assurance and institutional strategy.
