62024CJ0340
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber)
20 November 2025 (
*1
)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Free movement of persons – Articles 45 and 49 TFEU – Recognition of professional qualifications – Right to pursue the profession of a support teacher in a Member State – Nationals of that Member State who have obtained evidence of formal qualifications issued by a private higher education institute in another Member State – Formal qualification which is not legally recognised and does not give access to the corresponding profession in the latter Member State – Obligation on the first Member State to take into consideration all of the diplomas, certificates and other evidence which the person concerned holds – Derogation)
In Joined Cases C‑340/24 and C‑442/24 [Artollisi and Lescolanno (
i
)],
TWO REQUESTS for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Regional Administrative Court, Lazio, Italy), made by decisions of 3 May and 17 June 2024, received at the Court on 9 May and 21 June 2024 respectively, in the proceedings
EW (C‑340/24),
LO (C‑442/24)
v
Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito (C‑340/24 and C‑442/24),
Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca (C‑340/24),
THE COURT (Eighth Chamber),
composed of O. Spineanu-Matei, President of the Chamber, S. Rodin (Rapporteur) and N. Fenger, Judges,
Advocate General: N. Emiliou,
Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
having regard to the written procedure,
after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
–
LO, by S. Berengan, B. Celletti and F. Vannicelli, avvocati,
–
the Italian Government, by S. Fiorentino, acting as Agent, and by D. D’Alberti and T. Lubrano Lobianco, avvocati dello Stato,
–
the French Government, by B. Dourthe and M. Guiresse, acting as Agents,
–
the Kingdom of Norway, by A. Narvestad and I. Collett, acting as Agents,
–
the European Commission, by L. Armati, P.A. Messina and J. Szczodrowski, acting as Agents,
having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
gives the following
Judgment
1
These requests for a preliminary ruling concern the interpretation of Article 13 of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22), as amended by Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 (OJ 2013 L 354, p. 132) (‘Directive 2005/36’).
2
The requests have been made in two sets of proceedings between (i) EW, on the one hand, and the Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito (Ministry of Education and Merit, Italy) and the Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca (Ministry of Universities and Research, Italy), on the other hand, and (ii) LO, on the one hand, and the Ministry of Education and Merit, on the other hand, regarding the rejection of the applications made by EW and LO for recognition of a qualification entitled ‘Curso superior de Especialización en atención a las necesidades específicas de apoyo educativo’ (Advanced course for specialisation in learning support for special needs), awarded by the Universidad Cardenal Herrera – CEU in Valencia (Spain), in order to pursue the profession of a teacher specialised in learning support.
Legal context
European Union law
3
Recital 41 of Directive 2005/36 states:
‘This Directive is without prejudice to the application of Articles [45](4) and [49] of the [FEU] Treaty …’
4
Under Article 1 of that directive:
‘This Directive establishes 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 (referred to hereinafter as the host Member State) shall recognise professional qualifications obtained in one or more other Member States (referred to hereinafter as the home Member State) and which allow the holder of the said qualifications to pursue the same profession there, for access to and pursuit of that profession.’
5
The first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of that directive provides:
‘This Directive shall apply to all nationals of a Member State wishing to pursue a regulated profession in a Member State, including those belonging to the liberal professions, other than that in which they obtained their professional qualifications, on either a self-employed or employed basis.’
6
Article 3(1)(c) and (d) of that directive contains the following definitions:
‘For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions apply:
…
(c)
“evidence of formal qualifications”: diplomas, certificates and other evidence issued by an authority in a Member State designated pursuant to legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions of that Member State and certifying successful completion of professional training obtained mainly in the [European Union]. …
(d)
“competent authority”: any authority or body empowered by a Member State specifically to issue or receive training diplomas and other documents or information and to receive the applications, and take the decisions, referred to in this Directive’.
7
Article 13 of Directive 2005/36, entitled ‘Conditions for recognition’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:
‘If access to or pursuit of a regulated profession in a host Member State is contingent upon possession of specific professional qualifications, the competent authority of that Member State shall permit applicants to access and pursue that profession, under the same conditions as apply to its nationals, if they possess an 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.
Attestations of competence or evidence of formal qualifications shall be issued by a competent authority in a Member State, designated in accordance with the laws, regulations or administrative provisions of that Member State.’
Italian law
8
The profession of learning support teacher is a regulated profession in Italy. Under Article 4 of legge n. 124 – Disposizioni urgenti in materia di personale scolastico (Law No 124 – incorporating urgent measures concerning school staff) of 3 May 1999 (GURI No 107 of 10 May 1999), only persons who have obtained a formal qualification as a teacher specialised in learning support shall be entered into the provincial lists on the basis of which annual supply teaching posts are assigned.
9
Article 7(4)(e) of the ordinanza ministeriale n. 60 – Procedure di istituzione delle graduatorie provinciali e di istituto di cui all’articolo 4, commi 6 bis e 6-ter, della legge 3 maggio 1999, n. 124 e di conferimento delle relative supplenze per il personale docente ed educativo (Ministerial Order No 60 – Procedure for drawing up provincial lists and establishment lists referred to in Article 4, paragraphs 6bis and 6ter, of Law No 124 of 3 May 1999, and for assigning supply teaching posts for teaching and educational staff) of 10 July 2020, provides that candidates seeking inclusion on those provincial lists must provide, attached to their application, ‘the necessary access qualifications obtained no later than the deadline for submitting the application, with a precise indication of the establishments which awarded those qualifications’ and that ‘if the qualification giving access was obtained abroad and recognised by the Ministry, details of the decision to recognise that qualification must also be provided’.
10
Furthermore, the referring court states that the qualification as a teacher specialised in learning support for pupils who have a disability, obtained in Italy on completion of a specific specialised course, or an equivalent qualification of a teacher specialised in learning support obtained abroad and recognised in Italy, allows access to the learning support teaching posts offered in a public selection process.
11
Legge n. 148 – Ratifica ed esecuzione della Convenzione sul riconoscimento dei titoli di studio relativi all’insegnamento superiore nella Regione europea, fatta a Lisbona l’11 aprile 1997, e norme di adeguamento dell’ordinamento interno (Law No 148 ratifying and enforcing 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’) of 11 July 2002 (GURI No 173 of 25 July 2002, Ordinary Supplement No 151) provides, in 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.’
12
Article 5 of that law states:
‘1.   Academic qualifications for purposes other than those referred to in Article 2 shall be recognised by State administrations, in compliance with the provisions in force on recognition for professional purposes and access to public posts, in accordance with procedures to be laid down by subsequent implementing regulations.’
13
Decreto legislativo n. 206 – Attuazione della direttiva 2005/36/CE relativa al riconoscimento delle qualifiche professionali, nonché della direttiva 2006/100/CE che adegua determinate direttive sulla libera circolazione delle persone a seguito dell’adesione di Bulgaria e Romania (Legislative Decree No 206 transposing 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) of 9 November 2007 (GURI No 261 of 9 November 2007, Ordinary Supplement No 228), as amended by decreto legislativo n. 15 – Attuazione della direttiva 2013/55/UE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, recante modifica della direttiva 2005/36/CE, relativa al riconoscimento delle qualifiche professionali e del regolamento (UE) n. 1024/2012, relativo alla cooperazione amministrativa attraverso il sistema di informazione del mercato interno («Regolamento IMI») (Legislative Decree No 15 transposing Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 amending Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (‘the IMI Regulation’)) of 28 January 2016 (GURI No 32 of 9 February 2016) (‘Legislative Decree No 206/2007’), governs, under Article 1 thereof, inter alia, ‘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 allows the holder of those qualifications to pursue the corresponding profession in the home Member State’.
14
Under Article 2 of Legislative Decree No 206/2007, that legislative decree ‘applies to citizens of Member States of the European Union who wish to pursue in the national territory, as employed or self-employed workers, including those belonging to the liberal professions, a regulated profession, on the basis of professional qualifications obtained in a Member State of the European Union and which, in the home State, entitles them to pursue that profession’.
15
Article 3(1) and (2) of Legislative Decree No 206/2007 states:
‘1.   The recognition of professional qualifications under the present legislative decree allows the persons referred to in Article 2(1) to gain access, if they satisfy the specific conditions required, 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 person concerned wishes to pursue on Italian territory shall be the same as that for which he or she is qualified in his or her home Member State where the activities covered are comparable (without prejudice to the provisions of Article 5septies on partial access).’
16
Article 4 of Legislative Decree No 206/2007 states that the concept of ‘professional qualifications’ refers to ‘qualifications attested by evidence of formal qualifications, an attestation of competence … or professional experience’ and that persons who have obtained a formal qualification abroad, namely a qualification listed among ‘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 [European Union]’, which, on the basis of that legislative decree, confers on them a professional qualification and entitles them to pursue that profession in the home Member State, may instigate the procedure for the recognition of professional qualifications provided for by that legislative decree.
The disputes in the main proceedings, the questions referred for a preliminary ruling and the procedure before the Court
17
In 2021, the applicants in the main proceedings each submitted to the competent Italian authority an application for recognition of professional qualifications obtained in another Member State, to pursue the profession of a teacher specialised in learning support. The recognition requested concerns the qualification entitled ‘Advanced course for specialisation in learning support for special needs’, awarded by the Universidad Cardenal Herrera – CEU in Valencia.
18
The competent Italian authority rejected the applications made by the applicants on the ground that, according to the information received from the competent Spanish authorities following a request made through the Internal Market Information System, provided for by Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System and repealing Commission Decision 2008/49/EC (‘the IMI Regulation’) (OJ 2012 L 316, p. 1), the qualification at issue, which was a qualification specific to the university that had awarded it, was not an official qualification in Spain and did not allow the regulated profession of a ‘primary school teacher’ specialising in therapeutic education, in hearing and in language, that is, the qualifications required for specialised teaching in Spain, to be pursued in that Member State.
19
Consequently, the competent Italian authority concluded that that qualification, which was not recognised by the Spanish State, was not valid and did not produce effects in Spain, with the result that it could not be recognised under any Italian legislation.
20
The applicants in the main proceedings therefore brought an action for annulment of the decisions to refuse their respective applications before the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Regional Administrative Court, Lazio, Italy), which is the referring court.
21
That court is of the view that there is a doubt as to the compatibility of the interpretation given to the relevant national legislation in the national case-law with EU law, which effectively requires competent national authorities always to assess the content of the training followed in the home Member State by comparing it to that which is provided for by the law of the host Member State, in particular in a situation where the qualification for which recognition is requested in the host Member State is not legally recognised in the home Member State as being an official qualification which provides access to the profession in question.
22
In those circumstances, the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Regional Administrative Court, Lazio) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions, which are identical in the two cases in the main proceedings, to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘(1)
Must Article 13 of Directive [2005/36], read in the light of the [EU] 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?
(2)
In the event that Article 13 of Directive [2005/36] 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?’
23
By decision of the President of the Court of 11 September 2024, Cases C‑340/24 and C‑442/24 were joined for the purposes of the written and oral parts of the procedure and of the judgment.
Consideration of the questions referred
24
First, it must be stated that, by its questions, the referring court asks the Court about the interpretation of Article 13 of Directive 2005/36. However, the recognition of professional qualifications, which that provision envisages, implies that the person who requests that recognition has evidence of formal qualifications which qualify him or her in the home Member State to pursue a regulated profession there. That directive does not apply to a situation in which a person seeking recognition of his or her professional qualifications has not obtained that evidence of formal qualifications (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 July 2021, Lietuvos Respublikos sveikatos apsaugos ministerija, C‑166/20, EU:C:2021:554, paragraph 29), which is the case of the applicants in the main proceedings.
25
According to settled case-law, in the procedure laid down by Article 267 TFEU providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to decide the case before it. To that end, the Court should, where necessary, reformulate the questions referred to it (judgments of 28 November 2000, Roquette Frères, C‑88/99, EU:C:2000:652, paragraph 18, and of 24 June 2025, GR REAL, C‑351/23, EU:C:2025:474, paragraph 61).
26
In the present case, it is apparent from all of the information provided by the referring court in the statement of reasons for the request for a preliminary ruling in Case C‑340/24 – the order for reference in Case C‑442/24 merely referring, in essence, to that request – that the referring court in reality seeks to ascertain whether EU law imposes, in the context of examining an application for recognition of professional qualifications obtained in another Member State, an obligation, for the host Member State, to take into consideration evidence of formal qualifications obtained in the home Member State which are not legally recognised by that Member State and which have no official status in that State.
27
The applicants in the main proceedings are Italian nationals who have followed a course at a Spanish university and have therefore exercised their right to free movement. After the end of their studies, the applicants applied for recognition of their formal Spanish qualifications by the competent Italian authority in order to be able to pursue the profession of a teacher specialised in learning support. However, a national of a Member State, who has resided and obtained in another Member State a university qualification of which he or she intends to make use in the Member State of which he or she is a national, is covered by Article 45 or 49 TFEU (see, to that effect, judgment of 3 March 2022, Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto (Basic medical training), C‑634/20, EU:C:2022:149, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).
28
Consequently, it must be held that, by its two questions referred for a preliminary ruling, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks whether Articles 45 and 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that they impose on the host Member State an obligation to take into consideration, in the context of the examination of an application for recognition of professional qualifications, evidence of formal qualifications obtained in another Member State which are not legally recognised by that State and which do not have any official status in that State.
29
According to settled case-law, in a situation which does not fall within the scope of Directive 2005/36 but which falls within the scope of Article 45 TFEU or Article 49 TFEU, the authorities of a Member State to which an application has been made by an EU national for authorisation to pursue a profession, access to which depends, under national legislation, on the possession of a diploma or professional qualification or on periods of practical experience, are required to take into consideration all the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications of the person concerned and his or her relevant experience, by comparing the specialised knowledge and abilities so certified, and that experience, with the knowledge and qualifications required by the national legislation (judgment of 3 March 2022, Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto (Basic medical training), C‑634/20, EU:C:2022:149, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited).
30
That comparative examination procedure presupposes mutual trust among Member States in the evidence of professional qualifications issued by each Member State. Consequently, the authority of the host Member State is in principle required to consider authentic a document such as evidence of formal qualifications issued by the authority of another Member State (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 June 2022, Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto (Psychotherapists), C‑577/20, EU:C:2022:467, paragraph 48).
31
However, in the present case, the home Member State informed the competent authorities of the host Member State that the qualification at issue in the main proceedings, since it was a qualification specific to the university that awarded it, was not an official qualification in the home Member State and did not allow for the regulated profession which the applicants in the main proceedings wished to access to be pursed there. Moreover, it is apparent from the case file submitted to the Court that, subject to verification by the referring court, the qualification at issue does not give access to higher education and does not form part of the system established by the Bologna Process and the European Higher Education Area.
32
It follows that the mutual trust on which the system for the recognition of professional qualifications in the European Union is based cannot be relied on in a situation where the evidence of formal qualifications obtained in the home Member State has been issued by a private institution which has not been authorised by the competent authorities of that Member State to issue evidence of formal qualifications which attest to a professional qualification, so that the qualification awarded by such an institution is not ‘issued by a Member State’ and, therefore, not only is it not recognised in that Member State, but it offers no guarantee as regards the level and the quality of the competences to which it attests.
33
Where, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not fall within the scope of Directive 2005/36, but which falls within the scope of Article 45 TFEU or Article 49 TFEU, the host Member State concerned must, as is apparent from paragraphs 29 and 30 above, take into consideration, inter alia, a qualification awarded by the home Member State, those articles cannot require the first Member State to take into consideration a qualification which was not awarded by the second Member State and which is not recognised there. The freedoms of movement cannot require the host Member State to attach more value to a formal qualification awarded in the home Member State than it has in that State.
34
However, the host Member State remains free, where appropriate, to take account of such a qualification in the context of the comparative examination procedure referred to in paragraph 29 above.
35
Consequently, it must be held that the answer to the questions referred is that Articles 45 and 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that they do not impose on the host Member State an obligation to take into consideration, in the context of the examination of an application for recognition of professional qualifications, evidence of formal qualifications obtained in another Member State which are not legally recognised by that State and which do not have any official status in that State.
Costs
36
Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby rules:
Articles 45 and 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that they do not impose on the host Member State an obligation to take into consideration, in the context of the examination of an application for recognition of professional qualifications, evidence of formal qualifications obtained in another Member State which are not legally recognised by that State and which do not have any official status in that State.
[Signatures]
(
*1
)	Language of the case: Italian.
(
i
)	The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.