# C_2016191EN.01001101.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili (Malta) lodged on 29 February 2016 — Malta Dental Technologists Association and Others v Superintendent tas-Saħħa Pubblika, Kunsill tal-Professjonijiet Kumplimentari għall-Mediċina

(Case C-125/16)

(2016/C 191/13)

Language of the case: Maltese

Referring court

Referring court

Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Malta Dental Technologists Association and Others

Applicants:

Defendants: Superintendent tas-Saħħa Pubblika, Kunsill tal-Professjonijiet Kumplimentari għall-Mediċina

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the prohibition by the Maltese health authorities, or their refusal to grant recognition to the profession of clinical dental technologists/denturists, whereby, despite the absence of discrimination in law, individuals from other Member States who have made an application in this respect are in practice precluded from establishing their profession in Malta, incompatible with the principles and the legal provisions regulating the creation of the single market, in particular those resulting from Articles 49 TFEU, 52 TFEU and 56 TFEU, in a situation where there is no risk to public health? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the prohibition by the Maltese health authorities, or their refusal to grant recognition to the profession of clinical dental technologists/denturists, whereby, despite the absence of discrimination in law, individuals from other Member States who have made an application in this respect are in practice precluded from establishing their profession in Malta, incompatible with the principles and the legal provisions regulating the creation of the single market, in particular those resulting from Articles 49 TFEU, 52 TFEU and 56 TFEU, in a situation where there is no risk to public health?

| 2. | Should Directive 2005/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005, known as the Professional Qualifications Directive, be applied with respect to clinical dental technologists in view of the fact that, should a denture prove to be defective, the only consequence would be that the defective dental appliance would have to be modified or replaced, without any risk to the patient? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should Directive 2005/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005, known as the Professional Qualifications Directive, be applied with respect to clinical dental technologists in view of the fact that, should a denture prove to be defective, the only consequence would be that the defective dental appliance would have to be modified or replaced, without any risk to the patient?

1

| 3. | Can the prohibition by the Maltese health authorities, which is being contested in the present case, serve to ensure the aim of having a high level of public health protection, when any defective denture can be replaced without any risk to the patient? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the prohibition by the Maltese health authorities, which is being contested in the present case, serve to ensure the aim of having a high level of public health protection, when any defective denture can be replaced without any risk to the patient?

| 4. | Does the way in which the defendant, the Superintendent of Public Health, interprets and enforces Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 with respect to clinical dental technologists who have applied for recognition by the same Maltese health authorities constitute an infringement of the principle of proportionality? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the way in which the defendant, the Superintendent of Public Health, interprets and enforces Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 with respect to clinical dental technologists who have applied for recognition by the same Maltese health authorities constitute an infringement of the principle of proportionality?

---

(1)  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).

1

---