62020CJ0577_RES
Case C‑577/20
A
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-okeus (Finland))
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 16 June 2022
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Recognition of professional qualifications – Directive 2005/36/EC – Article 2 – Scope – Article 13(2) – Regulated professions – Right to take up the profession of psychotherapist in a Member State based on a diploma in psychotherapy awarded by a university established in another Member State – Articles 45 and 49 TFEU – Freedom of movement and establishment – Assessment of the equivalence of training – Article 4(3) TEU – Principle of sincere cooperation among Member States – Doubts of the host Member State as to the level of knowledge and qualifications that can be presumed from a diploma awarded in another Member State – Conditions)
Free movement of persons – Freedom of establishment – Workers – Recognition of professional qualifications – Scope of Directive 2005/36 – Regulated professions – Failure to meet the criterion of having pursued the profession concerned in another Member State – Application for recognition lodged in the host Member State – Exclusion – Restrictions resulting from the rules in the host Member State relating to the pursuit of certain activities – Obligation of that Member State to determine whether the diplomas and qualifications obtained by the applicant are equivalent to those required under national law
(Arts 45 and 49 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/36, Art. 13(2))
(see paragraphs 34, 35, 37, 40-44, operative part 1)
Free movement of persons – Freedom of establishment – Workers – Recognition of professional qualifications – Right to pursue a regulated profession in the host Member State – Competent authority of that Member State which has to consider a diploma awarded by the authority of another Member State as credible – Serious doubts of that authority, based on concrete evidence, as to the presumed level of knowledge and qualifications obtained by the applicant – Right of the authority concerned to request the issuing authority to review the grounds for awarding the diploma – Evidence that may consist of information provided in a professional capacity by persons other than the organisers of the training concerned or the authorities of another Member State – Discretion of the authority issuing the diploma concerned
(Art. 4(3) TEU; Arts 45 and 49 TFEU)
(see paragraphs 46-52, 54, 55, 57, operative part 2)
Résumé
A, a Finnish national, took a course in psychology organised in Finland and in Finnish by a UK university in association with a Finnish company. In November 2017, at the end of the course, the university awarded her a postgraduate diploma. She subsequently applied to the Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavisasto (Department for the authorisation and supervision of public health and social welfare, Finland; ‘Valvira’) for the right to use the professional title of psychotherapist, which is protected under Finnish law. Earlier in the year, Valvira had been contacted by former students on the course who had raised concerns about the potential inadequacy of the course content.
In 2018, Valvira rejected A’s application on the grounds that it was not satisfied that the course met the requirements for psychotherapist training in Finland. In April 2019, the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Administrative Court, Helsinki, Finland) dismissed A’s appeal against that decision, upholding Valvira’s interpretation.
A appealed the judgment before the referring court, the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court, Finland). The referring court notes that the profession of psychotherapist is not regulated in the United Kingdom, and that the interested party – who has not pursued the profession of psychotherapist in another Member State which does not regulate that profession, as required under Article 13(2) of Directive 2005/36 – (
1
) cannot assert the right to access that profession in Finland under the directive. However, the referring court is uncertain whether A’s situation should also be examined in the light of the principles of free movement of workers (
2
) and freedom of establishment, (
3
) and, if so, whether the competent authority of the host Member State, when determining whether the knowledge and qualifications are equivalent, may rely on information other than that provided by the university awarding the diploma concerned.
The Court of Justice answered the first of those questions in the affirmative, taking the view that an application for access to a regulated profession submitted in those circumstances must be examined in the light of Articles 45 or 49 TFEU. It also held that the competent authority of the host Member State that had received such an application must consider a diploma awarded by the authority of another Member State as valid. Only where that authority has serious doubts, based on concrete evidence defined by the Court of Justice, may it request the issuing authority to review the grounds for awarding the diploma and, where appropriate, to withdraw it. If the diploma is not withdrawn, it is only in exceptional cases, where it is clear from the circumstances that the diploma is not credible, that the authority of the host Member State may challenge the grounds for awarding the diploma.
Findings of the Court
First, the Court of Justice clarifies that the situation at issue falls within the scope of Directive 2005/36, since the formal qualification concerned was issued in a Member State other than the host Member State. However, the interested party does not appear to meet the requirement laid down in Article 13(2) of Directive 2005/36 of having pursued the profession of psychotherapist during the minimum period referred to in that provision. As a result, she cannot rely on any system for the recognition of professional qualifications established by that directive.
Examining A’s situation in the light of Articles 45 and 49 TFEU, the Court notes that the free movement of persons means that Member States may not deny the benefit of the freedoms recognised by those two provisions to their nationals who have obtained professional qualifications in another Member State. Further, the authorities of a Member State to whom an application has been made for authorisation to practise a regulated profession must take into consideration all the diplomas, certificates and other 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 rules. Since this principle is inherent in the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the TFEU, the adoption of directives on the mutual recognition of diplomas – including Directive 2005/36 – should not have the effect of making it harder to recognise diplomas, certificates and other formal qualifications in situations those directives do not cover. Thus, in a situation in which none of the systems for the recognition of professional qualifications established by Directive 2005/36 apply, it is in the light of Articles 45 and 49 TFEU that the host Member State must fulfil its obligations with regard to the recognition of professional qualifications.
Second, the Court of Justice states that the comparative examination procedure for the abovementioned different qualifications and experience must enable the authorities of the host Member State to verify, on an objective basis, whether the foreign diploma certifies that its holder has knowledge and qualifications which are, if not identical, at least equivalent to those attested 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 that 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. Since that comparison presupposes mutual trust among Member States in the qualifications issued, the authority of the host Member State is obliged in principle to consider a diploma issued by the authority of another Member State as credible. Only where that authority has serious doubts, based on concrete elements forming a consistent body of evidence suggesting that the diploma relied on by the applicant does not reflect the level of knowledge and qualifications that the applicant can be presumed to have acquired, may that authority request the issuing authority to review, in the light of that evidence, the grounds for awarding that diploma and, where appropriate, to withdraw it. Such concrete evidence may include information provided by persons other than the course organisers. Where the issuing authority has reviewed the grounds for awarding the diploma in the light of that evidence, but has not withdrawn it, it is only in exceptional cases, where it is clear from the circumstances that the diploma is not credible, that the authority of the host Member State may challenge the grounds for awarding the diploma.
(
1
)	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).
(
2
)	The principle of freedom of movement for workers is provided for by Article 45 TFEU.
(
3
)	The principle of freedom of establishment is governed by Article 49 TFEU.