Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2017:677
Date: 2017-09-13
Language of the case: Italian
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Internal market - Principles;Freedom to provide services;Free movement of workers
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 20 December 2017 1. Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Doctors — Obtaining of specialist qualifications — Training conditions — National bursary funding that training given in another Member State — Disbursement conditional upon the recipient doctor practising his profession in the Member State awarding it for a period of five years or upon repayment of 70% of the amount of the bursary received, together with interest — Lawfulness (Council Directives 75/363, Art. 2(1)(c), and 93/16, Art. 24(1)(c)) 2. Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Restrictions — National legislation making the disbursement of a bursary funding specialist doctor training given in another Member State conditional upon the recipient doctor practising his profession in that Member State for a period of five years or upon repayment of 70% of the amount of the bursary received, together with interest — Not permissible — Justification — Protection of public health and of the financial equilibrium of the social security system — Assessment by the national court (Arts 45 TFEU and 49 TFEU) 1. Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 75/363/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors, as amended by Council Directive 82/76/EEC of 26 January 1982, as well as Article 24(1)(c) of 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 must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in accordance with which the disbursement of a national bursary intended to fund training given in another Member State, leading to qualification as a specialist doctor, is conditional upon the recipient doctor practising his profession in that first Member State for a period of five years over a ten-year period following completion of the specialisation or, failing that, upon his repayment of up to 70% of the amount of the bursary received, together with interest. (see para. 31, operative part 1) 2. Articles 45 and 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in accordance with which the disbursement of a national bursary intended to fund training given in another Member State, leading to qualification as a specialist doctor, is conditional upon the recipient doctor practising his profession in that first Member State for a period of five years over a ten-year period following completion of the specialisation or, failing that, upon his repayment of up to 70% of the amount of the bursary received, together with interest, unless the measures laid down by that legislation do not actually contribute to the pursuit of the objectives of protection of public health and of the financial equilibrium of the social security system and go beyond what is necessary in that regard, which is a matter for the referring court to assess. (see para. 51, operative part 2)