Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2004:203
Date: 2004-04-01
Language of the case: Italian
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Freedom to provide services;Free movement of workers
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

summary it is to be observed that a higher value is placed on training for general medicine than on the recognition of acquired rights. The higher value of training does not, of course, exclude the fact that by reason of their practical experience holders of acquired rights are comparably or better qualified for the practice of general medicine than holders of a training certificate. The reason for this better qualification would not lie in the acquired rights but rather in the practical experience as such. 37. Thus the answer to the first question is that the Medical Practitioners Directive fundamentally places a higher value on the training certificate in general medical practice than on acquired rights. V – Conclusion 38. I propose, therefore, answering the questions of the Regional Administrative Court of Puglia as follows: 1. Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications, in principle places a higher value on training in general medical practice than on acquired rights. 2. Directive 93/16/EEC does not include a rule as to whether: – the award of a certificate of specific training in general medical practice allows Member States to grant to doctors who also have a right to practise acquired on or before 31 December 1994 more favourable terms in the form of an entitlement to apply for a larger number of posts than granted to the holders of a certificate of training in general medical practice and doctors treated as equivalent to them, and/or whether – the Member States may grant the abovementioned doctors further special treatment by in all cases granting them additional points for obtaining the certificate of specific training in general medical practice. 1 – Original language: German. 2 – OJ 1993 L 165, p. 1. 3 – OJ 1986 L 267, p. 26. 4 – Judgment in Joined Cases C-69/96 to C-79/96 Garofalo and Others [1997] ECR I‑5603, paragraph 31. 5 – Cf. Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in Garofalo [1997] ECR I‑5605, point 46 et seq. 6 – Cf. judgment in Case C-25/02 Rinke [2003] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 38. 7 – Cf. in this sense the decision of 17 October 2003 in Case C-35/02 (Vogel [2003] ECR I-0000). The Council Directive 78/687/EEC of 25 July 1978 for the co-ordination of legal and regulatory provisions for the activities of dentists (OJ 1978 L 233, p. 10) which is comparable to the Medical Directive prevents a national ruling permitting (national) doctors generally to practise the activities of a dentist although they have not completed the necessary training in accordance with Directive 78/687. 8 – As also the Rinke judgment (cited in footnote 6, paragraph 38). 9 – On indirect sex discrimination see the Rinke judgment (cited in footnote 6). Interference with freedom of profession is also to be justified. 10 – .Garofalo judgment (cited in footnote 4, paragraph 31). 11 – .Garofalo judgment (cited in footnote 4, paragraph 34).