Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:910
Date: 2025-11-20
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary C-340/24 – 1 
Case C-340/24 [Artollisi] i 
Summary of request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of the 
Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
9 May 2024 
Referring court: 
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
3 May 2024 
Applicant: 
EW 
Defendants: 
Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito 
Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca 
      
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Action before the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Lazio 
Regional Administrative Court), in which the applicant seeks annulment of the 
decision of the Ministry of Education rejecting his application for recognition of 
the academic qualification obtained following the advanced specialisation course 
awarded to him by the Universidad Cardenal Herrera di Valencia (Cardenal 
Herrera University of Valencia, Spain). 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
The reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU concerns the 
interpretation of the provisions of Chapter I of Title III of Directive 2005/36/EC 
 
i The name of the present case is fictitious. It does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-340/24 
 
2  
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the 
recognition of professional qualifications (‘Directive 2005/36/EC’). 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
I) Must Article 13 of Directive 2005/36/EU, as amended by Directive 
2013/55/EU, read in the light of the Community objective of the abolition of 
obstacles to the free movement of persons and services between Member States 
and the freedom of movement of teachers, be interpreted, with regard to the intra-
Community recognition of professional qualifications, with particular reference to 
the qualification as a specialised learning support teacher, as precluding the 
interpretation and application of national legislation, which allows the conditions 
for recognition to be regarded as satisfied even if the specialist qualification 
obtained in the home Member State does not permit the pursuit of the 
corresponding profession in that State and is not legally recognised as a 
qualification conferring the right to exercise that profession? 
II) In the event that Article 13 of Directive 2005/36/EU, as amended by 
Directive 2013/55/EU, does not preclude such an interpretation and application of 
national legislation, must the provisions of Chapter I of Title III of Directive 
2005/36 therefore be interpreted as meaning that the competent authorities 
responsible for recognising qualifications, once the relevant application has been 
received, are always and in any event required to assess the content of all the 
documents submitted by the person concerned, capable of attesting his or her 
professional qualification, even if they do not confer the right to pursue that 
profession in the home Member State, to establish whether the training which 
those documents certify satisfies the requirements for obtaining the professional 
qualification in question in the host Member State and, where appropriate, to 
apply compensation measures? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended 
by Directive 2013/55/EU: recitals 1 and 3, Articles 1, 4, 13, 14 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union: Articles 45, 49 and 165 
Lisbon Convention: Article 5 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Legge 11 luglio 2002, n. 148 «Ratifica ed esecuzione della Convenzione sul 
riconoscimento dei titoli di studio relativi all’insegnamento superiore nella 
Regione europea, fatta a Lisbona 1’11 aprile 1997, e norme di adeguamento 
ARTOLLISI 
 
3 
dell’ordinamento interno».(Law No 148 of 11 July 2002 entitled ‘Ratification and 
enforcement of the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning 
Higher Education in the European Region, drawn up in Lisbon on 11 April 1997, 
and provisions for adapting domestic law’). 
Article 2: ‘1. Competence to recognise cycles and periods of study completed 
abroad and foreign academic qualifications for the purposes of access to higher 
education, the pursuit of university studies and the award of Italian university 
diplomas shall be conferred on universities and university higher education 
establishments, which exercise such competence within the scope of their 
autonomy and in accordance with their respective rules, without prejudice to the 
relevant bilateral agreements.’ 
Article 5: ‘1. Academic qualifications for purposes other than those referred to in 
Article 2 shall be recognised by State administrations, in accordance with the 
provisions in force in the area of recognition for professional purposes and access 
to public posts, in accordance with procedures to be laid down by subsequent 
implementing regulations.’ 
As regards the specific qualification as a specialised learning support teacher, 
which is the subject of the present action, the parties who obtained the 
qualification under Legge 3 maggio 1999 n. 124 (Law No 124 of 3 May 1999) 
may be included in specific provincial ranking lists, through which annual supply 
teaching posts are assigned. 
In particular, ordinanza ministeriale n. 60 del 10 luglio 2020 (Ministerial Decree 
No 60 of 10 July 2020), regulating the procedures for drawing up provincial 
ranking lists, provides that, for the purposes of inclusion on the aforementioned 
provincial lists, it is necessary to provide, attached to the application, ‘evidence of 
the required access qualifications, together with a precise indication of the 
establishments which awarded them’, and that, ‘if the qualifications giving access 
were obtained abroad and recognised by the Ministry, details of the decision to 
recognise that qualification must also be provided’. 
The qualification as a specialised learning support teacher for pupils with 
disabilities obtained as a result of a specific specialised training is a qualification 
giving access to the learning support teaching posts offered in a public selection 
process. Consequently, in the Italian legal system, by allowing inclusion in the 
provisional ranking lists for the assignment of annual supply teaching posts and 
admission to public selection procedures for the appointment of teachers, the 
qualification as a specialised learning support teacher is evidence of formal 
qualifications which entitles the holder to exercise a profession (learning support 
teacher).  
As such, if obtained in another Member State, that qualification is governed by the 
recognition procedure provided for by:  
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-340/24 
 
4  
Decreto legislativo 9 novembre 2007, n. 206 (Legislative Decree No 206 of 
9 November 2007), as amended by decreto legislativo 28 gennaio 2016, n. 15 
(Legislative Decree No 15 of 28 January 2016) ‘Implementation of Directive 
2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications and Directive 
2006/100/EC adapting certain directives in the field of freedom of movement of 
persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania’. 
According to Article 1, the decree governs ‘the recognition, for access to and 
pursuit of regulated professions, of professional qualifications already obtained in 
one or more Member States of the European Union, which allow the holder of 
those qualifications to exercise the corresponding profession in the home Member 
State’ and ‘… the recognition of professional qualifications already obtained in 
one or more Member States of the European Union and which allow the holder of 
those qualifications to pursue the corresponding profession in the home Member 
State, with a view to partial access to a regulated profession on national territory, 
and the criteria relating to the recognition of professional traineeships carried out 
by Italian nationals in another Member State’; 
- according to Article 2, it applies ‘to nationals of Member States of the 
European Union who wish to exercise a regulated profession in the national 
territory, on either a self-employed or employed basis, including those belonging 
to the liberal professions, on the basis of professional qualifications obtained in a 
Member State of the European Union and which, in the home State, entitles them 
to exercise that profession’; 
- according to Article 3, «1. The recognition of professional qualifications 
under this legislative decree allows the parties referred to in Article 2(1) to gain 
access, if they satisfy the specific conditions laid down, to the same profession as 
that for which they are qualified in their home Member State and to pursue it 
under the same conditions as those laid down by Italian law. 
2. For the purposes of Article 1(1), the profession which the party concerned 
wishes to pursue on Italian territory is the same as that for which he or she is 
qualified in his or her home Member State if the activities covered are 
comparable’. 
According to Article 4, ‘professional qualifications’ are ‘qualifications attested by 
evidence of formal qualifications, an attestation of competence referred to in 
Article 19(1)(a)(1) or professional experience’. That article also defines evidence 
of formal qualifications, as ‘diplomas, certificates and other evidence issued by a 
university or by another authorised body pursuant to specific rules certifying 
successful completion of professional training obtained mainly in the 
Community’. 
ARTOLLISI 
 
5 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 On 2 July 2021, the applicant obtained in Spain the qualification awarded by the 
Cardenal Herrera University of Valencia (Spain) following the ‘Curso superior de 
especializacion en atencion a las necesidades especificas de apoyo éviative’ 
(Advanced specialisation course in learning support for special needs). 
2 On 14 December 2021, pursuant to Legislative Decree No 206/2007 
implementing Directive 2005/36, the applicant submitted an application for 
recognition of that qualification in Italy for the purposes of specialising as a 
learning support teacher at a high school. 
3 The Ministry of Education initiated a procedure during which it obtained the 
necessary information from the competent Spanish administration. The 
administration stated that the course followed by the applicant is a qualification 
from the Cardenal Herrera University not officially recognised, which, in Spain, 
does not confer the right to exercise the regulated profession of a primary school 
teacher in areas of therapeutic educational specialisation, or Hearing and 
Language, that are the professional qualifications required for specialised teaching 
in Spain.  
4 Consequently, the qualification was not recognised by the Spanish State, it could 
not be equated to any Italian qualification, nor could it be regarded as 
corresponding to an Italian training course, in so far as it was not the subject of a 
final examination; it was therefore equivalent to an end of course certificate. 
Therefore, once it was found that the course completed in Spain was neither valid 
nor effective, it could not be recognised in Italy. 
5 By a decision of 21 October 2022, the Ministry of Education therefore rejected the 
aforementioned application for recognition. The applicant brought an action 
against that decision before the referring court. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
6 The applicant alleges infringement of the Lisbon Convention, in particular 
Article 5 thereof, as implemented in Italy by Law No 148/2002. According to the 
applicant, although he requested recognition of his qualification awarded in Spain 
pursuant to Directive 2013/55, the situation referred to in the rejected application 
for recognition does not fall within the scope of EU law regulating professional 
recognition by Member States, but within that which envisages the possibility of 
recognition of a university qualification obtained in another European State, 
thereby resulting in the application of the Lisbon Convention, as implemented in 
Italy by Law No 148/2002, rather than the aforementioned Directives 2005/36 and 
2013/55. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-340/24 
 
6  
7 The Ministry of Education stated that, as the necessary legal requirements are not 
satisfied, since the qualification in question is not recognised by the Spanish State, 
it is obliged to reject the application for recognition. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
8 The referring court has doubts as to the compatibility of the national legislation 
with EU law, with particular reference to the present case, in which the 
qualification as a specialised learning support teacher obtained by the applicant, 
which is the subject of the application for recognition submitted in the host State, 
is not legally recognised, in terms of its official character and ability to confer the 
right to exercise the profession concerned, by the home Member State. 
9 On the basis of the principles of national case-law developed by the plenary 
session of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy), the competent Ministry 
must always assess the content of the training course completed in the home 
Member State, by comparing it with that provided for in the legal system of the 
host Member State, in order to identify possible compensation measures enabling 
it to be recognised. This is the case even where the qualification which is the 
subject of the application is not legally recognised, in terms of its official 
character and ability to confer the right to pursue the corresponding profession, by 
the home Member State. Consequently, when interpreting the national law 
transposing Directives 2005/36/EC and 2013/55/EC, the application of those 
principles would oblige the Italian State, in the light of an examination of the 
relevant knowledge and following the application of compensation measures, if 
necessary, to recognise a qualification obtained in another Member State which 
does not however confer the right to pursue the profession of learning support 
teacher in that home Member State. 
10 In that regard, the referring court refers to the provisions of Directive 2005/36, as 
amended by Directive 2013/55, and in particular:  
- recital 1: the Community has the objective of the abolition of obstacles to 
the free movement of persons and services between the Member States, intended 
to give nationals of the Member States the possibility of pursuing, in a self-
employed or employed capacity, a profession in a Member State other than that in 
which they obtained their professional qualifications; 
- recital 3: the purpose of the Directive is to confer, on persons having 
acquired their professional qualifications in a Member State, to have access to the 
same profession and pursue it in another Member State with the same rights as 
nationals, without prejudice, however, to compliance by the migrant professional 
with any non-discriminatory conditions of pursuit which might be laid down by 
the latter Member State, provided that these are objectively justified and 
proportionate; 
ARTOLLISI 
 
7 
- article 1: the purpose of the Directive is to establish rules ‘according to 
which a Member State which makes access to or pursuit of a regulated profession 
in its territory contingent upon possession of specific professional 
qualifications … shall recognise professional qualifications obtained in one or 
more other Member States … and which allow the holder of the said 
qualifications to pursue the same profession there, for access to and pursuit of that 
profession.’ 
- article 4: the recognition of a foreign qualification ‘allows the beneficiary to 
gain access in that Member State to the same profession as that for which he is 
qualified in the home Member State and to pursue it in the host Member State 
under the same conditions as its nationals’; 
- article 13: the recognition by the host Member State, for the purposes of 
access to and pursuit of that profession, under the same conditions as apply to its 
nationals, is contingent upon applicants ‘possessing the attestation of competence 
or evidence of formal qualifications [referred to in article 11], required by another 
Member State in order to gain access to and pursue that profession on its 
territory’; 
- article 14: the host Member State is entitled to impose compensation 
measures on the applicant in order to render the training undertaken by the 
applicant in his or her home Member State comparable, in terms of duration or 
substantial content of the training, to that required in the host Member State. 
11 The doubt as to the applicability of Directive 2005/36 to the present case arises 
from the fact that, if it is considered that, on the basis of the aforementioned 
principles deriving from national case-law developed by the Consiglio di Stato 
(Council of State), the Member States are under an obligation to analyse the 
content of training undertaken in other Member States with a view to their 
recognition as qualifications conferring the right to exercise a profession, 
irrespective of whether the evidence of formal qualifications in question is legally 
recognised in the home Member State as a qualification capable of conferring the 
right to exercise the corresponding profession, this could conflict with the purpose 
of Directive 2005/36, as expressed in its recitals and in Article 13. 
12 The referring court observes that extending the effects of the procedure laid down 
by Directive 2005/36 to cases where the evidence of formal qualifications does 
not represent evidence of formal qualifications legally recognised as such by the 
home Member State would have an ‘innovative’ effect, in the sense that a 
qualification which is not capable of conferring the right to exercise the regulated 
profession in the home Member State would be converted into a qualification 
capable of conferring that right, by virtue of that recognition, in the host Member 
State. 
13 Consequently, in accordance with the principle of mutual recognition and 
pursuant to the provisions of Articles 45, 49 and 165 TFEU, that qualification 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-340/24 
 
8  
would be introduced and circulated in the EU legal system as having its origin, in 
terms of its ability to confer the right to exercise a profession, not when the 
training is completed in the Member State in which it is organised, but following 
the recognition procedure itself, and would thus also be binding on the home 
Member State which did not recognise it from the outset as having that scope. 
14 In addition, the referring court refers to the judgments of the Court of Justice of 
8 July 2021, Lietuvos Respublikos sveikatos apsaugos ministerija (Supreme 
Administrative Court of Lithuania), C-166/20, and of 13 November 2003, 
C-313/01, Morgenbesser. In the first judgment, the Court held that ‘as regards the 
purpose of Directive 2005/36, it is clear from Articles 1 and 4 thereof that the 
fundamental purpose of mutual recognition is to allow the holder of a 
professional qualification giving access to a regulated profession in the holder’s 
home Member State to gain access, in the host Member State, to the same 
profession as that for which he or she is qualified in the home Member State, and 
to practise that profession in the host Member State under the same conditions as 
its own nationals (judgment of 16 April 2015, Angerer, C-477/13, 
EU:C:2015:239, paragraph 36). Therefore, the mutual recognition of 
professional qualifications referred to in that directive presupposes that the 
applicant has training which qualifies him or her in the home Member State to 
pursue a regulated profession there’. 
15 The Court therefore concluded that Directive 2005/36 ‘must be interpreted as not 
applying to a situation in which a person seeking recognition of his or her 
professional qualifications has not obtained formal evidence of qualifications 
which qualify him or her in the home Member State to pursue a regulated 
profession there’. 
16 In Case C-313/01, the Court stated, in its judgment, that “it is therefore the duty of 
the competent authority to examine, in accordance with the principles set out by 
the Court of Justice in Vlassopoulou and Fernández de Bobadilla, whether, and to 
what extent, the knowledge certified by the diploma granted in another Member 
State and the qualifications or professional experience obtained there, together 
with the experience obtained in the Member State in which the candidate seeks 
enrolment, must be regarded as satisfying, even partially, the conditions required 
for access to the activity concerned. That examination procedure must enable the 
authorities of the host Member State to assure themselves, on an objective basis, 
that the foreign diploma certifies that its holder has knowledge and qualifications 
which are, if not identical, at least equivalent to those certified by the national 
diploma. That assessment of the equivalence of the foreign diploma must be 
carried out exclusively in the light of the level of knowledge and qualifications 
which its holder can be assumed to possess in the light of that diploma, having 
regard to the nature and duration of the studies and practical training to which 
the diploma relates (Case 222/86 Heylens and Others [15 October 1987] 
ECR 4097, paragraph 13; Vlassopoulou, paragraph 17)’. 
ARTOLLISI 
 
9 
17 The referring court states, however, that unlike the present case, where the 
condition laid down in Article 13 of the Directive, namely possession of a 
professional qualification required in the home Member State to pursue the 
corresponding profession in that State, has not been met, in the cases giving rise to 
the aforementioned judgments, the evidence of formal qualifications obtained in 
the home Member State was legally recognised there and recognition of the ability 
to confer the right to exercise the profession in question was prevented by the fact 
that the applicant had not completed the training required to pursue the profession 
in that State. 
18 The referring court therefore considers it necessary for the Court to rule on that 
specific situation, in which the qualification which is the subject of the application 
for recognition which was rejected, representing a qualification to which, in the 
abstract, the regulations regarding general recognition apply, as is apparent from 
an express declaration by the home Member State, is not ‘official’ evidence of 
formal qualifications and is not legally recognised there as a qualification 
conferring the right to exercise the corresponding profession.