Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2018:990
Date: 2018-12-06
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Freedom to provide services;Free movement of workers
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 6 December 2018 1. Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Workers — Recognition of professional qualifications — Directive 2005/36 — Principle of automatic recognition — National legislation creating a requirement to pursue full-time training and a prohibition on being enrolled on two courses at the same time — Evidence of formal qualifications issued by another Member State which were obtained as a result of partially overlapping training — Requirement of automatic recognition (European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/36, Arts 21, 22 and 24) 2. Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Workers — Recognition of professional qualifications — Directive 2005/36 — Principle of automatic recognition — Host Member State’s powers of investigation — Verifying compliance with the condition relating to the overall duration, level and quality of part-time training compared with continuous full-time training — Not permissible (European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/36, Arts 21 and 22(a)) 1. Articles 21, 22 and 24 of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications must be interpreted as obliging a Member State, whose legislation creates a requirement to pursue full-time training and a prohibition on being enrolled on two courses at the same time, automatically to recognise the evidence of formal qualifications issued by another Member State on the completion of partially concurrent training. (see para. 32, operative part 1) 2. Article 21 and Article 22(a) of Directive 2005/36 must be interpreted as precluding the host Member State from verifying compliance with the condition that the overall duration, level and quality of part-time training are not lower than those of continuous full-time training. In that regard, it can be observed that a system for the automatic and unconditional recognition of evidence of formal qualifications, such as that provided for in Article 21 of Directive 2005/36, would be seriously jeopardised if it were open to Member States at their discretion to question the merits of a decision taken by the competent authority of another Member State to issue such evidence (see, by analogy, judgment of 19 June 2003, Tennah-Durez, C‑110/01, EU:C:2003:357, paragraph 75). The automatic and unconditional recognition of evidence of formal qualifications remains the same where the home Member State issues such evidence following basic medical training or dental practitioner training that is provided in accordance with Article 22(a) of Directive 2005/36. In that context also, it is for the competent authorities of the home Member State, and not for those of the host Member State, to ensure that the overall duration, level, and quality of the part-time training are not lower than those of continuous full-time training, and, more generally, that all the requirements laid down by Directive 2005/36 are fully complied with. Accordingly, where a course satisfies the training requirements established by Directive 2005/36, which it is for the authority of the Member State which issues the evidence of formal qualifications to verify, the authorities of the host Member State may not refuse recognition of that evidence of formal qualifications. The fact that the individual concerned has pursued part-time training, under Article 22(a) of that directive, or more than one course simultaneously or during periods which partially overlap, is irrelevant in that regard, provided that the training requirements laid down by that directive are met. (see paras 36, 37, 40, 41, operative part 2)