Abstract;Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2022:467
Date: 2022-06-16
Language of the case: Finnish
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Freedom to provide services;Free movement of workers
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Finland

Summary C-577/20 – 1 
Case C-577/20 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
4 November 2020 
Referring court: 
Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
29 October 2020 
Appellant: 
A 
Other party: 
Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto 
Subject matter and legal basis of the main proceedings 
Request for a preliminary ruling – Article 267 TFEU – Recognition of 
professional qualifications and examinations – Protected professional title – 
Directive 2005/36/EC – Article 13 – Articles 45, 49 and 53 TFEU 
Subject matter of the request for a preliminary ruling 
The Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court, Finland) is called on 
to decide whether the national authority (Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja 
valvontavirasto, Licensing and Supervisory Authority for Social Affairs and 
Health, Finland, ‘Valvira’) was entitled to reject A’s application for entitlement to 
use the protected professional title of psychotherapist. A had applied for that 
entitlement in essence on the basis of a diploma awarded by a university in the 
United Kingdom. 
The first issue to be decided in the case is whether A’s application can be rejected 
on the sole ground that he has not pursued the profession of psychotherapist in 
another Member State in the manner referred to in the first subparagraph of 
Article 13(2) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-577/20 
 
2  
Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as 
amended by Directive 2013/55/EU. [Or. 2] 
If the application cannot be rejected on that ground alone, A’s right to pursue a 
regulated profession must be assessed on the basis of Articles 45 and 49 of the 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the case-law of the 
Court of Justice on the recognition of professional qualifications and examinations 
(in particular the judgment of 7 May 1991, C-340/89, Vlassopoulou and the 
judgment of 6 October 2015, C-298/14, Brouillard). In that case, it will be 
necessary in the present case to take a position on whether, in the particular 
circumstances of the present case, the national authority was entitled to reject the 
application on the ground that it considered the practical implementation of the 
training completed by him to be so inadequate in essential respects that, in itself, 
the training could not be regarded as preparatory training for the profession of 
psychotherapist. 
In that context, it will be necessary to assess the extent to which EU law, in the 
light of the aforementioned case-law of the Court of Justice (for example in the 
Brouillard judgment, paragraphs 55 and 56), restricts the right of the competent 
authority of a Member State to examine the manner of implementation in practice 
of the essential elements of training, for which a diploma from a university 
forming part the education system of another Member State is awarded. 
Questions referred 
1. Are the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty on European Union 
and Directive 2005/36/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the competent 
authority of the host Member State must assess an applicant’s right to pursue 
a regulated profession in accordance with Articles 45 and 49 TFEU and the 
relevant case-law (in particular, judgment of 7 May 1991, C-340/89, 
Vlassopoulou, and judgment of 6 October 2015, C-298/14, Brouillard) even 
though the conditions for the pursuit of a regulated profession are supposed 
to be standardised in Article 13(2) of Directive 2005/36/EC, and, under 
those conditions, the host Member State must permit the pursuit of a 
profession by an applicant who holds evidence of formal qualifications from 
a Member State in which the profession is not regulated, but who does not 
satisfy the requirement for the pursuit of the profession laid down in that 
provision of the directive? 
2. If the first question referred is answered in the affirmative: In the light of the 
statements made in Case C-298/14, Brouillard (paragraph 55 of the 
judgment) concerning the exclusive criteria for assessing the equivalence of 
certificates, does EU law preclude the competent authority of the host 
Member State, in a situation such as that at issue in the present case, from 
also basing its assessment of the equivalence of training on information 
other than that obtained from the training provider or the authorities of the 
SOSIAALI- JA TERVEYSALAN LUPA- JA VALVONTAVIRASTO 
 
3 
other Member State regarding the precise content of the training and the 
manner in which it is implemented? 
Provisions of EU law cited 
Articles 45, 49 and 53 TFEU. [Or. 3] 
Recitals 1, 3, 6, 11, 17 and 44 and Articles 1 to 4 and 10 to 14 of 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. 
Case-law of the Court of Justice cited 
Judgment of 7 May 1991, C-340/89, Vlassopoulou, ECLI:EU:C:1991:193, 
paragraph 23. 
Judgment of 6 October 2015, C-298/14, Brouillard, ECLI:EU:C:2015:652, 
paragraphs 42, 47 to 48 and 51 to 57. 
Judgment of 21 September 2017, C-125/16, Malta Dental Technologists 
Association and Reynaud, ECLI:EU:C:2017:707, paragraphs 32, 38 and 52. 
Judgment of 27 June 2013, C-575/11, Nasiopoulos, ECLI:EU:C:2013:430, 
paragraphs 20 and 31 to 33. 
Provisions of national law cited 
Laki terveydenhuollon ammattihenkilöistä (559/1994, 1 Law on healthcare 
professionals, No 559/1994; ‘Law on professionals’) 
Pursuant to point 1 of Paragraph 1 of the Law on professionals, the purpose of that 
law is to improve patient safety and the quality of healthcare services by ensuring 
that the healthcare professionals within the meaning of that law have the training 
required for their professional activity, other sufficient professional qualifications 
and other skills required for the professional activity. 
Pursuant to point 2 of Paragraph 2(1) of the Law on professionals, a healthcare 
professional means, inter alia, a person who, on the basis of that law, has the right 
to use the professional title of a healthcare professional regulated by government 
decree (professional with a protected professional title). Pursuant to subparagraph 
2 of that paragraph, an authorised or licensed professional or a professional with a 
 
      
1 Finlex: https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1994/19940559. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-577/20 
 
4  
protected professional title is entitled to work in the profession concerned and to 
use the professional title concerned. Other persons who have sufficient education, 
experience and professional skills may also work in the profession of a 
professional with a protected professional title. 
Pursuant to Paragraph 3a(1) of the Law on professionals, the Union’s provisions 
on recognition for the purposes of that law are the provisions of Directive 
2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of 
professional qualifications (‘Professional Qualifications Directive’) as well as 
related acts of the Commission concerning the exercise of delegated powers and 
related to the implementation of that directive. Pursuant to subparagraph 2 of that 
paragraph, where that law does not contain any provisions on the recognition of 
professional qualifications, the Ammattipätevyyden [Or. 4] tunnustamisesta 
annettu laki (1384/2015, Law on the recognition of professional qualifications, 
No 1384/2015) or the Professional Qualifications Directive applies. Pursuant to 
subparagraph 3 of that paragraph, the Licensing and Supervisory Authority for 
Social Affairs and Health acts as the competent authority for healthcare 
professionals within the meaning of the Professional Qualifications Directive and 
the Law on the recognition of professional qualifications. 
Pursuant to Paragraph 5(2) of the Law on professionals, a person who has 
completed training in Finland for a profession regulated by government decree has 
the right to use the professional title in question. Where the training for a 
profession is not regulated, the entitlement to use the professional title is 
contingent upon the Licensing and Supervisory Authority for Social Affairs and 
Health having recognised the training – on application – in accordance with more 
detailed provisions issued by government decree. 
Pursuant to Paragraph 8(2) of the Law on professionals, the Licensing and 
Supervisory Authority for Social Affairs and Health is to grant, upon application, 
entitlement to use in Finland the professional title of a healthcare professional 
which is regulated by government decree to an EU or EEA national who, on the 
basis of training received in an EU or EEA State other than Finland, has been 
awarded a certificate as referred to in the Union’s rules on recognition or an 
equivalent document in respect of training which is required in the State in 
question in order to gain access to the professions in question. Pursuant to the first 
sentence of subparagraph 3 of that paragraph, that authority may, in addition to 
the provisions in subparagraphs 1 and 2, require an applicant either to complete an 
adaptation period or to take an aptitude test in accordance with the provisions of 
the Law on the recognition of professional qualifications. 
SOSIAALI- JA TERVEYSALAN LUPA- JA VALVONTAVIRASTO 
 
5 
Asetus terveydenhuollon ammattihenkilöistä (564/1994, 2 Decree on healthcare 
professionals, No 564/1994; ‘Decree on professionals’) 
Pursuant to Paragraph 1 of the Decree on professionals, the professional titles of 
healthcare professionals within the meaning of point 2 of Paragraph 2(1) of the 
Law on healthcare professionals (No 559/1994) include ‘psychotherapist’. 
Pursuant to Paragraph 2a(1) of the Decree on professionals, the use of the 
protected professional title of psychotherapist is subject to the person concerned to 
having completed psychotherapist training organised by a university or by a 
university together with another training establishment. The organising university 
must have educational competence in the field of psychology or medicine. The 
university is to admit the students to the psychotherapist training. Pursuant to 
subparagraph 2 of that paragraph, the competence required to practice as a 
psychotherapist is to be acquired through studies worth at least 60 credits, 
consisting of study modules in theoretical studies, supervised psychotherapy work 
with patients, formative psychotherapy and a final dissertation. Competence is to 
be demonstrated in a practical examination. [Or. 5] 
Pursuant to subparagraph 3 of the aforementioned paragraph, the use of the 
professional title is subject to at least two years of professional experience in the 
field of mental healthcare or in an equivalent role and, prior to the psychotherapy 
training, the completion of: 
1) a suitable university degree or suitable degree of professional higher 
education in the social or health field; the degree must include a total of 30 credits 
for studies in psychology or psychiatry or those credits must have been attained on 
a supplementary basis; 
2) a degree in nursing with an additional specialisation in psychiatry, where the 
degree does not include psychiatric studies; or 
3) other training completed abroad, equivalent to that in points 1 and 2 above. 
Pursuant to subparagraph 4 of the aforementioned paragraph, the university is to 
issue to students a certificate attesting the completion of the training. The 
certificate is to state the date and scope of the training, the study modules and the 
competence demonstrated in a practical examination. 
 
      
2 Finlex: https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1994/19940564. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-577/20 
 
6  
Laki ammattipätevyyden tunnustamisesta (1384/2015, 3 Law on the recognition of 
professional qualifications, No 1384/2015; ‘Law on professional qualifications’) 
Pursuant to Paragraph 1(1) of the Law on professional qualifications, that law 
governs the recognition of professional qualifications in accordance with the 
Professional Qualifications Directive and the freedom to provide services. 
Pursuant to subparagraph 2 of that paragraph, that law applies to the recognition 
of a professional qualification acquired by a national of a Member State of the 
European Union in another Member State. 
Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of the Law on professional qualifications, the following 
definitions apply for the purposes of that law: 
1) regulated profession: 4 a post or function, access to which or the 
pursuit of which is subject to the condition that a person satisfies certain 
professional qualification requirements regulated by law; 
2) professional qualification: a qualification attested by evidence of 
formal qualifications, an attestation of competence or professional 
experience, or a combination thereof; 
3) evidence of formal qualifications: diplomas, certificates and other 
evidence issued by the competent authority in a Member State certifying 
successful completion of professional [Or. 6] training obtained mainly in the 
Community, and evidence of professional training completed by a national 
of a Member State in a third country; 
7) home Member State: the State in which an employed person who has 
moved to Finland acquired his or her professional qualification; 
10) competent authority: a body that issues diplomas and other documents 
as the basis for a recognition decision, and an authority that receives 
applications and takes decisions on the recognition of a professional 
qualification; 
Pursuant to Paragraph 6(1) of the Law on professional qualifications, recognition 
of a professional qualification is based on an attestation of competence, a single 
document providing evidence of formal qualifications or a combination of such 
documents issued by a competent authority in another Member State. Recognition 
of a professional qualification is subject to a person having the right in his or her 
 
      
3 Finlex: https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2015/20151384. 
4 Point 1 of Paragraph 3 of the Law on professional qualifications was amended as follows by 
Amending Law No 518/2020, which entered into force on 1 July 2020: 1) a regulated 
profession: a post or function, access to which or the pursuit of which is subject to the condition 
that a person satisfies the detailed statutory requirements for professional qualifications. Finlex: 
https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2020/20200518 
SOSIAALI- JA TERVEYSALAN LUPA- JA VALVONTAVIRASTO 
 
7 
home Member State to work in the profession for the pursuit of which he or she is 
applying for the decision concerning recognition of the professional qualification. 
Pursuant to subparagraph 2 of that paragraph, recognition of professional 
qualifications also applies to applicants who, during the last ten years, have 
pursued their profession on a full-time basis for one year or on a part-time basis 
for an equivalent period in another Member State in which the profession in 
question is not regulated and who possess one or more attestations of competence 
or documents providing evidence of formal qualifications. Those attestations or 
documents must attest that the holder is qualified for the pursuit of the profession 
in question. However, the one year of professional experience is not required 
where the evidence of formal qualifications which the applicant possesses certifies 
regulated professional training. 
Brief summary of the facts and procedure 
Valvira 
1 A applied to Valvira for the right to use the protected professional title of 
psychotherapist. A attached to the application, inter alia, a diploma issued by the 
University of the West of England, Bristol on 27 November 2017 (‘has been 
awarded the POSTGRADUATE DIPLOMA with Merit having followed an 
approved postgraduate programme of study in SOLUTION FOCUSED 
THERAPY at Helsinki Psychotherapy Institute’). 
2 The training was organised by the University of the West of England, Bristol 
(‘UWE’) in cooperation with the Finnish company limited by shares ‘s 
Psykoterapiainstituutti Oy (‘HPI’), which operates in Finland. The training was 
delivered in Finland and in Finnish. 
3 Valvira had been contacted at various times by concerned parties about the 
psychotherapy training at issue. During 2017, Valvira received correspondence 
from individuals who had participated in UWE and HPI’s Solution Focused [Or. 
7] Therapy training programme. The individuals who made contact referred to 
deficiencies in the supervised work carried out as part of the training and in the 
formativepsychotherapy. 
4 Those individuals also stated that the time actually spent on formative 
psychotherapy did not correspond to the time documented in the students’ 
workbook. They said that the actual content of the studies did not correspond to 
the learning objectives and content as per the programme specification and 
promises made by the training providers. 
5 In September 2017, Valvira contacted by telephone five people who had applied 
for the right to use the protected professional title of psychotherapist after having 
completed, in June 2016, the training organised by UWE in cooperation with HPI. 
The descriptions provided by those five people in relation to the implementation 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-577/20 
 
8  
of the supervised work and formative psychotherapy aligned with the statements 
described above. 
6 By decision of 29 June 2018, Valvira rejected A’s application for the right to use 
the protected professional title of psychotherapist, in essence on the ground that A 
had not provided Valvira with sufficient information on the content of the 
training. 
7 By decision of 10 September 2018, Valvira rejected the objection which A had 
lodged. A had asserted that the training had been completed in Finland. Valvira’s 
decision stated that the training was considered to have been completed in a 
foreign education system. Valvira had not been able to ascertain whether the 
training had been carried out in such a way as to meet the requirements imposed 
on psychotherapy training in Finland, particularly with regard to the supervised 
psychotherapeutic patient work and the students’ individual formative 
psychotherapy. 
Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Helsinki Administrative Court, Finland) 
8 By decision of 25 April 2019, the Helsinki Administrative Court dismissed the 
action brought by A. The Administrative Court held that the UWE-HPI training 
must be regarded as having been completed in the United Kingdom, irrespective 
of the fact that it was actually organised in Finland and in Finnish. The provisions 
of the general system for recognition did not require the application to be granted, 
because A had not practised the profession of psychotherapist either in the United 
Kingdom or in another Member State in which the profession of psychotherapist 
and the training for that profession are not regulated. 
9 In its reasoning, the Administrative Court stated that Valvira had previously 
clarified, in the context of dealing with other cases in the United Kingdom, 
whether the profession of psychotherapist or the training for that profession was 
regulated there in the manner defined in Article 3(1)(a) and (e) of the Professional 
Qualifications Directive. According to the information obtained, both the British 
Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy and the Health and Care 
Professions Council had stated that the profession of psychotherapist is not 
regulated in the United Kingdom. The UK National Contact Point for Professional 
Qualifications had stated [Or. 8] that, in its view, the profession of 
psychotherapist and the training for that profession are not regulated in the United 
Kingdom. 
10 It is also apparent from the Administrative Court’s reasoning that Valvira had 
received an opinion from the Centre for Professional Qualifications from a similar 
application procedure before the competent authority in Sweden, Socialstyrelsen 
that the profession of psychotherapist and the training for that profession are not 
regulated in the United Kingdom in the manner referred to in the Professional 
Qualifications Directive. 
SOSIAALI- JA TERVEYSALAN LUPA- JA VALVONTAVIRASTO 
 
9 
11 The Administrative Court then also assessed the conditions for granting the 
application from the point of view of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the 
EU Treaty, referring to the judgments of the Court of Justice in C-298/14, 
Brouillard, and C-340/89, Vlassopoulou. 
12 The Administrative Court stated, inter alia, that when assessing the conditions for 
granting the application from the point of view of fundamental freedoms, the 
psychotherapy training completed abroad must be compared with the 
corresponding Finnish training currently provided, as Valvira had done. Valvira 
did not question the qualification conferred by the diploma issued by UWE Bristol 
as such, but compared the actual content of the training completed by A with the 
Finnish training. 
13 The Administrative Court considered that it had been established that there were 
considerable shortcomings and differences in the training in question compared 
with Finnish psychotherapy training. It found that Valvira was therefore entitled to 
assume that it had not been proven that A’s knowledge and qualifications were 
equivalent to those of a person who had completed the Finnish psychotherapy 
training. According to the Administrative Court, it also does not follow from the 
fundamental freedoms guaranteed in the TFEU that Valvira’s decision to reject 
the application was unlawful. 
Principal arguments of the parties to the main proceedings 
14 Before the Supreme Administrative Court, A submitted, inter alia, that the training 
was to be regarded as having been completed in Finland and that UWE, as the 
competent authority, has declared that the training complies with the Finnish 
Decree on healthcare professionals. The UWE-HPI training fulfils the 
requirements for psychotherapy training set out in Paragraph 2a of the Decree on 
healthcare professionals and must therefore be recognised as training leading to 
the protected professional title of psychotherapist. A maintained that 
psychotherapy training cannot be required to go beyond what results from the 
wording of the decree. However, if it is assumed by way of interpretation that the 
training had not been completed in Finland, that training must be assessed on the 
basis of the documents submitted by A and the training providers concerning the 
programme specification, the studies and the quality of those studies. According 
to A, Valvira did not carry out a comparison based on those documents, but 
assessed the UWE-HPI training on the basis of anonymous letters, an expert 
report obtained from the University of Oulu, which is to be regarded as a 
competitor of UWE-HPI, and interviews that it conducted itself. The principle of 
sincere cooperation under EU law [Or. 9] requires that Valvira not call into 
question the content of a document issued by UWE, which is to be regarded as the 
competent authority of another Member State. 
15 In its submissions before the Supreme Administrative Court, Valvira considered 
that it was legally unclear whether the application should be assessed in the light 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-577/20 
 
10  
of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the TFEU despite the fact that the 
application must already be rejected on the basis of the provision of national law 
by which Article 13(2) of Directive 2005/36/EC was transposed into national law 
and pursuant to which, in cases where the profession and training are not regulated 
in the home Member State, the recognition of a professional qualification requires 
that the profession has been pursued for a period of one year in another Member 
State. 
16 Valvira also took the view that psychotherapy training completed in another 
Member State is compared with the training provided at that time by Finnish 
universities in order to identify significant differences between the content of the 
training courses or to establish that there are no significant differences. According 
to Valvira, two out of three key areas of the psychotherapy training organised by 
UWE-HPI – supervised client work and formative psychotherapy – were found to 
be so deficient that the training does not meet the requirements of psychotherapy 
training in terms of content and quality. The training is not such training as to lead 
to the entitlement to use the protected professional title of psychotherapist. 
17 Valvira also stated that, in principle, it relies on the certificates and information 
regarding the content of training that are provided by universities in other Member 
States and by other training providers and does not investigate the content or 
practical implementation of training to an extent greater than is necessary to 
ascertain whether there are differences between the training completed and the 
Finnish training. The circumstances of the present case are particular in nature and 
exceptional. Students who had completed the training had made contact to express 
concerns about the actual implementation of the training and also about the 
resulting implications for patient safety, as part of the course consists in receiving 
patients. 
Brief summary of the grounds for the request 
18 In its case-law, the Supreme Administrative Court has held, in relation to a 
different case, that the UWE-HPI training in question in the present case cannot be 
regarded as training completed in Finland within the meaning of Paragraph 5(2) of 
the Law on professionals (Supreme Administrative Court, 1 July 2020, archive 
number 2846, brief summary of the decision 5). A’s application cannot therefore 
be granted on the basis of the provisions of national law applicable to the right to 
use a professional title on the basis of training completed in Finland. 
19 Since the conditions of access to the profession of psychotherapist have not been 
harmonised at European Union level, the Member States are entitled to lay down 
the knowledge and qualifications required in order to [Or. 10] pursue it and to 
require the production of a diploma certifying that the holder has that  knowledge 
 
      
5 Finlex: https://www.finlex.fi/fi/oikeus/kho/lyhyet/2020/202002846. 
SOSIAALI- JA TERVEYSALAN LUPA- JA VALVONTAVIRASTO 
 
11 
and those qualifications (see judgment of 6 October 2015, C-298/14, Brouillard, 
paragraph 48). Directive 2005/36/EC does not restrict the powers of the Member 
States on that point, but they must exercise their powers in this area in a manner 
which respects the basic freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty (see judgment of 
27 June 2013, C-575/11, Nasiopoulos, paragraph 20 and the case-law cited). 
20 In Finland, the profession of psychotherapist must be regarded as a regulated 
profession within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 2005/36/EC, since 
only a person who satisfies the conditions for professional qualifications under the 
Law on professionals and the Decree on professionals is entitled to use the 
professional title in question. 
21 The profession of psychotherapist is a regulated profession in Finland, with a 
view, in particular, to ensuring patient safety. 
22 Since the profession of psychotherapist is not covered by Chapters II and III of 
Title III of Directive 2005/36/EC, it is therefore subject to the general system for 
the recognition of evidence of training, laid down in Chapter I of that title, and in 
particular Articles 10 to 14 of that directive (see, by analogy, judgment of 
21 September 2017, C-125/16, Malta Dental Technologists Association and 
Reynaud, paragraph 38). According to the information obtained, the profession of 
psychotherapist is not a regulated profession in the United Kingdom and there is 
no regulated professional training for the pursuit of the profession. Therefore, 
Article 13(2), in particular, of the directive is relevant. 
23 Since A has not pursued the profession of psychotherapist in another Member 
State in which the profession in question is not regulated, the Supreme 
Administrative Court considers that he is not entitled, on the basis of the 
provisions of the directive, to take up the regulated profession of psychotherapist 
in Finland. Since national law –Paragraph 6(2) (as amended by Legislative 
Amendment No 1384/2015) of the Law on professional qualifications – in a 
manner which corresponds to that in the directive also requires at least one year’s 
professional experience in another Member State, the right to use the professional 
title of psychotherapist also cannot be granted under national law. 
24 Attached to the Postgraduate Diploma awarded by the University of the West of 
England (Bristol) is a document stating that ‘The program has been planned in 
accordance with the requirements of Finland’s Health Care Professionals Decree 
(564/1994) 2 a § and so that graduates fulfil the requirements in 2 a § 
Paragraph 3’. The Supreme Administrative Court takes the view that a declaration 
by a university in the United Kingdom’s education system stating that the training 
complies with the requirements of the Finnish Decree on healthcare professionals 
does not allow such evidence of qualifications to be categorised as evidence of 
formal qualifications within the meaning of the third subparagraph of 
Article 13(2) of the directive. [Or. 11] 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-577/20 
 
12  
25 Different views have been expressed in the case as to whether, notwithstanding 
the provisions of the directive, the case should also be assessed in the light of the 
fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Articles 45 and 49 TFEU and the relevant 
case-law of the Court of Justice. 
26 The interpretation that it is not necessary that a situation such as that in the present 
case also be assessed in the light of fundamental freedoms can be justified on the 
ground that this case comes within the scope of Directive 2005/36/EC and the 
general system under it and that the conditions for the exercise of a regulated 
profession in the host Member State, such as are at issue here, are harmonised by 
the provisions of Article 13(2) of Directive 2005/36/EC (see judgment of 
21 September 2017, C-125/16, Malta Dental Technologists Association and 
Reynaud, paragraph 52). On the other hand, the reasoning in judgments of the 
Court of Justice (for example in Case C-298/14, Brouillard, in particular 
paragraph 54, and in Case C-575/11, Nasiopoulos, in particular paragraph 32) may 
support an interpretation that it is necessary to assess the case from the point of 
view of the fundamental freedoms. 
27 The Supreme Administrative Court is not aware that the Court of Justice has 
expressly taken a position on the need, when dealing with individual applications, 
to assess separately from the point of view of the TFEU the conditions for the 
pursuit of a regulated profession – such as those in the present case – which are 
harmonised in the general scheme of Directive 2005/36/EC. This is the subject of 
the first question referred by the Supreme Administrative Court. 
28 If the Court of Justice considers that, in a situation such as that at issue here, the 
application must also be assessed from the point of view of the fundamental 
freedoms guaranteed by the TFEU, notwithstanding the detailed rules laid down in 
Directive 2005/36/EC, the Supreme Administrative Court must determine what 
significance is to be attributed to the diploma awarded by UWE. In that context, it 
is also necessary to take a position on whether the authority of the host Member 
State, when seeking to ascertain that a foreign diploma attests that the holder 
possesses the same or at least equivalent knowledge and qualifications as those 
attested by a national diploma, may also base its assessment on information 
obtained from other sources concerning the implementation of the training, or 
whether, even in the specific circumstances of a situation such as that at issue in 
the present case, it must rely on the information concerning the content of the 
training issued by the organiser of that training in respect of a certificate issued by 
a university forming part of the education system of another Member State. 
29 In Case C-298/14, Brouillard, the Court of Justice held that the 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, by 
virtue of that diploma, to possess, having regard to the nature and duration of the 
studies and practical training to which the diploma relates (paragraph 55 of the 
judgment). The Supreme Administrative Court takes the view that the purpose of 
those statements, as well as of the provision of Article 50(3) of Directive 
SOSIAALI- JA TERVEYSALAN LUPA- JA VALVONTAVIRASTO 
 
13 
2005/36/EC in the specific cases falling within its scope, is to limit the 
possibilities of the competent authority of the host Member State to assess the 
specific content and practical implementation of training completed in the 
education system of another Member State. If the Court of Justice answers the 
first question referred [Or. 12] in the affirmative, it is necessary to determine in 
the present case whether, in the specific circumstances of the present case, EU law 
precludes the competent authority of the host Member State from also basing its 
assessment of the equivalence of training on information, obtained from sources 
other than the training provider or the competent authorities of another Member 
State, concerning the precise content and implementation of the training.