COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 08.07.1997 
COM(97) 350 final 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
Review, on the basis of experience, of Council Directive 85/384/EEC 
of 10 June 1985 pursuant to Article 30 thereof 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
Review, on the basis of experience, of Council Directive 85/384/EEC 
of 10 June 1985 pursuant to Article 30 thereof 
I. INTRODUCTION 
In accordance with Article 30 of Council Directive 85/384/EEC, the Commission is to 
review this Directive on the basis of experience and, if necessary, submit proposals for 
amendments after consulting the Advisory Committee. 
Under that Article, the report should have been submitted in 1990. The reasons for the 
delay are set out below. 
First, certain Member States took considerably longer than allowed to transpose 
Directive 85/384/EEC into national law (the general deadline was 5 August 1987, but 
5 August 1988 in respect of Article 22). For example, Belgium did not transpose the 
Directive until 1990 and Greece did so only in 1993, while Italy transposed part of the 
Directive in 1992 before completing the bulk of the transposai exercise in 1995. 
Second, German unification on 3 October 1990 meant not only that the Federal Republic's 
new Lander had also to transpose Directive 85/384/EEC and, accordingly, that Germany 
had not yet completed transposai, but also that all the Member States had to transpose 
Article 8 of Council Directive 90/658/EEC of 4 December 1990 amending certain 
Directives on the recognition of professional qualifications consequent upon the unification 
of Germany (OJ No L 353 of 17 December 1990), which deleted Article 6 of 
Directive 85/384/EEC. 
Lastly, the entry into force of the Agreement on the European Economic Area 
(1 January 1994) and the accession to the European Community of Austria, Finland and 
Sweden (1 January 1995) had to be taken into account. The scope and impact of these 
developments could not be assessed immediately, and it would have been unacceptable to 
submit an assessment concerning only twelve of the fifteen Member States. Austria, for 
example, completed transposai in October 1995. 
The above reasons for the delay in submitting this report have been explained to the 
Member States on several occasions and have, in general, been accepted. 
A 
IL DIRECTIVE 85/384/EEC 
1. Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ No L 223 of 21 August 1985), 
was the result of lengthy, difficult negotiations lasting almost eighteen years. 
Inevitably, the outcome was a complex compromise between the Member States. 
Unlike the Directives recognizing medical qualifications, Directive 85/384/EEC 
does not lay down minimum training requirements for architecture but merely 
provides for qualitative and quantitative criteria (Articles 3 and 4 respectively) 
whereby a diploma can be recognized at Community level (Articles 7 and 8 contain 
the relevant procedural rules). 
The length of the negotiations which culminated in the adoption of 
Directive 85/384/EEC and its distinctive character in relation to the Directives 
recognizing the qualifications of certain medical professions reflect the fact that 
architecture is a complex, sensitive and problematic area. The main reason for these 
difficulties was the sometimes very pronounced differences between regulations in 
the field in the Member States. The enlargements of 1973 and 1981 meant that, four 
additional legal structures had to be taken into account, and mis initially made the 
negotiations even more complex. 
It also had to be taken into account that architecture is net regulated in some 
Member States (Ireland, Denmark. Sweden and Finland, plus Norway in an EEA 
context). In other Member States (including the Netherlands, the United Kingdom 
and Germany) only the title of architect is protected. Lastly, in yet other 
Member States (including Spain, Belgium and France) the title of architect is 
protected and, in addition, (with a few rare exceptions) architects enjoy a monopoly 
in pursuing their activity. What is more, architects' responsibilities and obligations 
vary greatly from one Member State to another. The difficulties caused by these 
sometimes very substantial differences in. the way the profession is regulated and in 
the field of architecture itself explain why Directive 85/384/EEC does not contain a 
precise definition of architecture (see the seventh, ninth and tenth recitals and 
Article 1(2)). 
2. It should be noted that Directive 85/384/EEC refers to qualifications enabling the 
holder to take up activities in the field of architecture and hence to the professional 
recognition of those qualifications. Such recognition applies only to qualifications 
awarded by Member States to Community nationals. Since the entry into force of 
the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1 January 1994). the same rules 
have applied to Iceland, Norway and (since 1 May 1995) Liechtenstein. With 
regard to Austria, Finland and Sweden, these rules had applied since 1 January 1994 
pursuant to the EEA Agreement and since 1 January 1995 pursuant to the 
EC Treaty. 
3. Directive 85/384/EEC comprises two sets of provisions on formai qualifications 
enabling the holder to take up activities in the field of architecture. The first set 
(Chapter II) sets out the common arrangements described in paragraph 1 above. 
The second (Chapter III) describes the arrangements for so-called "established 
rights", i.e. the mutual recognition of certain qualifications (listed exhaustively) 
which need not meet the minimum requirements set out in Chapter II (Articles 3 
and 4) but for which the relevant studies commenced during the third academic year 
at the latest following notification of Directive 85/384/EEC (5 August 1985), 
namely during the 1987/88 academic year. Under the Agreement on the European 
Economic Area and the Treaties enlarging the EC in 1986 and 1995, the list of 
"established rights" qualifications was extended to include qualifications awarded in 
the countries concerned by those three treaties (for the 1986 enlargement, this took 
the form of two Council Directives, namely 85/614/EEC of 20 December 1985 and 
86/17/EEC of 27 January 1986). 
The Directive in question also contains provisions to facilitate the effective exercise 
of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (Chapter V). 
4. However, the Directive does not provide for complete harmonization of training in 
architecture. Other training courses in architecture which do not comply with the 
Directive but are quite lawful may therefore also exist. It may also be that an 
individual completed part of his training in one Member State and another part (e.g. 
the practical training) in another Member State, in which case he may not possess 
the diploma referred to by the Directive (either the "new" one or the "established 
rights" one). All these courses (and the qualifications awarded on their completion) 
must be taken into account in accordance with Article 52 of the EC Treaty, as 
interpreted by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 7 May 1991 in Case C-340/89 
Vlassopoulou [1991] ECR 1-2357. In this case the Court held that, when an 
application to take up a regulated profession is submitted to a host Member State by 
a migrant who is authorized to practise that profession in his home State, the 
migrant's diplomas, certificates and other qualifications and the professional 
experience he has acquired must be taken into account by that Member State. If 
those qualifications are equivalent to those required under the host Member State's 
legislation to work in the field of architecture, the migrant must be authorized to do 
so. If that is not the case, he must be afforded the opportunity to remedy any 
shortcomings in his training. Lastly, the reasons on which any administrative 
decision is based must be given and it must be possible to make it the subject of 
judicial proceedings in which its legality under Community law can be reviewed. 
5. The recognition provided for under the Directive (along with the recognition based 
directly on Article 52 of the EC Treaty) applies only to diplomas acquired by 
Community nationals in a Member State of the Union. Where diplomas were 
acquired in a third country, recognition is optional and determined by each 
Member State. The fact that a diploma awarded by a third country has been 
recognized by one Member State does not oblige the others to do so (cf. Court 
judgments of 9 February 1994 in Cases C-319/92 Haim and 
C-l54/93 Tawil-Albertini). 
6. The legal definition of the field of architecture and the legal arrangements governing the 
profession of architect (e.g. rights, obligations, duties, incompatibilities) are covered by 
the national law of the host Member State. Accordingly, migrants have the same legal 
status as members of the profession who acquired their qualifications in the host 
Member State. This may mean that certain activities that the migrant was entitled to 
carry out in his home country may not be carried out in the host Member State. 
m. TRANSPOSAL INTO NATIONAL LAW 
As stated above, transposai of Directive 85/384/EEC has been delayed - substantially in 
certain cases. But the current state of transposai can be regarded as quite satisfactory 
overall. Problems have arisen particularly in Italy as a result of the excessive length and 
complexity of procedures. 
Transposai of Directive 85/384/EEC has given rise to a number of Court judgments. For 
instance, the Court found that Italy had failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty 
by not taking measures to transpose Directives 85/384/EEC, 85/614/EEC and 86/17/EEC 
within the prescribed period (judgment of 11 July 1991 in Case C-296/90). 
The Court also declared that Greece had failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty 
by failing to take measures to transpose those same Directives within the prescribed period 
(judgment of 7 November 1991 in Case C-309/90). It further held that Greece had failed to 
fulfil its obligations under Articles 50 and 59 of the EEC Treaty by retaining legislation 
which did not expressly confer on the nationals of other Member States the right to register 
as ordinary members of the Technical Chamber of Greece, whereas access to and exercise 
of the profession of architect in Greece is subject to, and facilitated by, such registration 
(judgment of 14 July 1988 in Case C-38/87); subsequently, in its judgment of 
30 January 1992 in Case C-328/90, the Court stated that Greece had not fulfilled its 
obligations under Article 171 of the EEC Treaty by failing to comply with the 
aforementioned judgment of 14 July 1988. 
In addition to the above, three sets of infringement proceedings are currently pending, 
against Spain, Italy and Luxembourg, the first two for faulty transposai (for the proceeding 
against Spain, in which only one specific issue is still outstanding, see Section V below), 
and the third for failure to apply the Directive properly. 
Since 1987 the Commission has received a total of 42 complaints, which chiefly hinged on 
failure to transpose Directive 85/384/EEC, late or faulty transposai, or failure to apply the 
Directive properly in practice. Some of these complaints gave rise to the infringement 
proceedings already mentioned, others were resolved following the Commission's 
intervention with the Member State concerned, and the remainder proved unfounded or 
irrelevant. Four complaints are under investigation at the time of writing (two against 
Belgium and two against Austria). 
In conclusion, transposai of Directive 85/384/EEC has proved to be lengthy and sometimes 
problematic. It has still not been officially completed and difficult cases are still arising. 
The Commission is in touch with complainants and Member States on a regular basis and, 
where appropriate, infringement proceedings will be instituted under Article 169 of the 
EC Treaty. 
IV. ASSESSMENT OF THE DIRECTIVE'S IMPACT 
1. Since 1987 (the general deadline for transposing Directive 85/384/EEC), the 
Commission has set up a mechanism whereby Member States can exchange 
statistics on the migration of architects. These statistics point to what is, after all, a 
fairly complex situation. 
Although migration of architects within the Community does not appear to 
concern large numbers of people, particularly as regards establishment, it may be 
that the statistics do not give the full picture. In countries where the profession is 
not regulated, it is very difficult, not to say impossible in some cases, to obtain 
reliable data since architects are not obliged to register or join a professional 
organization. In addition, the provision of services is often difficult to identify, 
even in countries where the right to practise in the field is regulated, since the 
relevant formalities are less burdensome and simpler (and, in some cases, even 
non-existent, de jure or de facto). All these factors must be taken into account 
when assessing the impact of Directive 85/384/EEC. 
2. In any event, migration of architects within the Community clearly does not 
involve large numbers of people. The available statistics mainly cover 
establishment, and the small number of cases is explained by economic, financial, 
social and cultural constraints. 
The Directive has nevertheless allowed a certain number of architects to move 
freely and ensured the automatic mutual recognition of the qualifications in 
architecture which it covers. Between 1987 and 1995 at least 1 500 architects 
benefited from the Directive. What is more, Article 3 in particular is still an 
important reference point for training in architecture within the Community and 
even elsewhere. 
The Directive thus forms part of the existing body of Community law and 
represents a definite advance on Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC, which set 
up a general system for the recognition of diplomas. That system does not 
provide for automatic recognition of diplomas in so far as there is no 
coordination of training, but it does allow the host Member State to impose 
additional requirements on migrants where the content or length of their training 
differs substantially from that required in the host country in order to take up and 
practise the profession or activity in question. In addition, unlike the "general 
system" Directives, Directive 85/384/EEC lays down specific arrangements for 
the provision of services, which is very important in the field of architecture. It 
provides migrants with more extensive rights than Directive 89/48/EEC. 
For all the above reasons, Directive 85/384/EEC continues to serve a genuinely 
useful purpose in spite of the adoption of the two aforementioned Directives. The 
general system is far more recent and is not yet fully operational in all 
Member States. Accordingly, the Directive should be retained as one of the 
sectoral directives for the recognition of professional qualifications. 
Directive 85/384/EEC refers to the Advisory Committee on Education and 
Training in the Field of Architecture set up by Council Decision 85/385/EEC. 
The Committee is composed of three experts from each Member State, 
representing the practising profession, the universities and the competent 
authorities. Its task is to help to ensure a comparably high standard of education 
and training for architects throughout the Community. It adopts reports and 
recommendations on training and delivers opinions in cases where the 
conformity of a diploma is disputed (see below the discussion of Articles 7 to 9 
of the Directive). Two working parties have been set up under the Committee, to 
discuss training and diplomas. The Committee has met eight times since 1987 
and has adopted the reports, recommendations and opinions listed in the Annex 
to this report. 
V. ANALYSIS OF THE DIRECTIVE'S MAIN ARTICLES 
ARTICLE 1 
This Article defines the material scope of Directive 85/384/EEC. It refers to architecture 
as opposed to architects because, in a number of Member States, architects are not the 
only individuals authorized to work in the field. That fact, combined with the marked 
differences in regulations between Member States, explains the use of the term "usually" 
in Article 1(2) (see also the ninth and tenth recitals). 
ARTICLE 2 
Article 2 affirms the fundamental principles of equivalence of diplomas and their mutual 
recognition by the Member States. As a result, migrants have the same rights, 
responsibilities and duties in the host country as architects who obtained their 
qualifications in that country. 
The Commission has instituted infringement proceedings against Spain, where the 
transposai legislation provides, with regard to certain activities in the field of 
architecture, that the migrant's obligations are those spelt out by the legislation of the 
home Member State as opposed to the (more favourable) arrangements provided for 
under Spanish law. 
ARTICLE 3 
This Article sets out the conditions which must be met by courses leading to diplomas, 
certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications mutually recognized by the 
Member States. These conditions are fairly general and merely set out the main qualitative 
principles which courses must meet in order to qualify for recognition under 
Directive 85/384/EEC.1 
ARTICLE 4 
1. Article 4 sets out the requirements as to course length that training courses must 
meet in order to be recognized under the Directive. The derogation granted to 
"Fachhochschulen" in Germany has been discussed in a separate Commission 
report (COM(95) 672, 15 December 1995). Judgments by the Court of Justice have 
clarified the conditions under which practical training can be validly integrated into 
architecture courses (see Cases C-310/90 of 21 January 1992 and C-166/91 of 
8 April 1992). 
The length of education and training in architecture must consist of a minimum of 
four years of full-time studies, or six years of part-time study of which at least three 
must be full time, at a university or comparable educational establishment. 
Education and training has to be concluded by successful completion of an 
examination of degree standard. 
2. In 1992 the Advisory Committee on Education and Training in the Field of 
Architecture adopted a recommendation to the Member States which advocated 
increasing the length of education and training in architecture to five years, to be 
followed by mandatory practical training of two years. 
The recommendation was discussed by the Member States in 1993 and 1994 (on the 
latter occasion by the Ad Hoc Group of Senior Officials Responsible for the Free 
Movement of Architects, with the participation of the countries which were then 
candidates for accession). It emerged at the time that no country was in favour of 
establishing mandatory practical training of two years. Regarding the length of 
training, there was no consensus in favour of making five years mandatory. 
As to substance, there is no apparent need to make binding that which is already 
allowed under Directive 85/384/EEC. Those countries wishing to do so may set up 
a training system based on the recommendation (as the Netherlands did in 1995). 
The Commission therefore does not propose to amend Article 4(1). 
It should be noted that, in December 1993, the Dutch authorities commissioned York University 
(Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies) to carry out a comparative study on training in 
architecture in the Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Belgium, France and the United Kingdom. The 
study was based on the criteria set out in Article 3 and was carried out independently of the Dutch 
authorities. It showed that the training in architecture provided in the Netherlands enabled students 
to reach a level of competence which met the criteria of Article 3 and was comparable to the level 
achieved by students in the other countries covered. Practical training in the Netherlands could be 
improved further. 
7 
3. Article 4(2) sets out special arrangements for alternatives to the traditional training 
route. Two qualifications have been accepted to date under the procedure described 
below (Articles 7 to 9), namely the Part II examination of the RIB A (Royal Institute 
of British Architects) (in 1988) and the French DPLG (architecture diploma 
awarded by the Government) as part of the continuing vocational training and 
upward mobility programme (1994), and this despite a negative opinion from the 
Advisory Committee (see below). 
ARTICLES 7 TQ 9 
These Articles deal with the procedure leading to recognition of diplomas, certificates and 
other evidence of formal qualifications in the field of architecture (excluding "established 
rights"; see under Articles 10 to 15 below). It is a complex procedure whereby 
Member States communicate new qualifications which they consider to meet the criteria 
laid down in Articles 3 and 4 of the Directive. The other Member States and the 
Commission then have three months in which to dispute compliance. If doubts are 
expressed, the matter is brought before the Advisory Committee, which delivers a 
(non-binding) opinion within three months. The Member State can then withdraw or 
amend the communication or the Commission may institute proceedings pursuant to 
Article 169 of the EC Treaty (within three months of the opinion being delivered). If no 
doubts are expressed, the diploma is published on the list provided for in Article 7 and is 
mutually recognized by the Member States (see also Article 8). 
With regard to the withdrawal of a diploma from that list (Article 9), if a Member State or 
the Commission considers that a diploma no longer complies with the Directive, it may 
bring the matter before the Advisory Committee, which delivers a (non-binding) opinion 
within three months. The Commission can withdraw a diploma from one of the lists 
published in accordance with Article 7 either with the agreement of the Member State 
concerned or following a ruling by the Court of Justice. 
Between 1987 and 1997 the Advisory Committee delivered ten opinions (nine under 
Article 8 and one under Article 9) on compliance by diplomas with the criteria laid down in 
Articles 3 and 4 of the Directive. Two opinions were positive and eight were negative 
(including the opinion delivered under Article 9). Two of the opinions (one of which being 
the opinion delivered under Article 9) were not followed. 
The list of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in architecture 
which are mutually recognized by the Member States (see Article 7(2) of 
Directive 85/384/EEC) is given in communication 96/C 205/05 (OJ No C 205 of 
16 July 1996, p. 6). 
One aspect of the procedure requires clarification. When a diploma's compliance with the 
Directive is disputed, it follows from the wording of Article 8 that the matter must be 
brought before the Advisory Committee before the three-month deadline for disputing 
compliance expires. This has often proved impossible in so far as Member States have 
often waited until the last day of that deadline before communicating their doubts about a 
diploma. Provision should therefore be made for the Commission to bring the matter 
before the Committee no later than two months after expiry of the period during which 
compliance with Directive 85/384/EEC can be disputed. 
8 
ART! 
1. Chapter III of the Directive sets out the "established rights" arrangements, which are 
designed to ensure the recognition of qualifications in architecture obtained on 
completion of training prior to the adoption or entry into force of the Directive. The 
reason for this was that it was necessary to preserve the rights of those individuals who 
were already authorized to work in the field or were about to be authorized to do so, 
when the Directive was adopted/came into force. Accordingly, Article 10 refers to the 
qualifications specified in Article 11 where their holders already possessed them at the 
time of notification of the Directive (5 August 1985) or where they had commenced their 
studies leading to those qualifications during the third academic year at the latest 
following such notification (i.e. up to and including the 1987/88 academic year). These 
time-limits also apply to Spanish and Portuguese qualifications, given that Spain and 
Portugal joined the Community on 1 January 1986. For the countries which joined the 
Union in 1995, that is the key date when calculating the time-limits for established rights 
in respect of persons holding qualifications awarded by them. The deadline by which 
studies leading to those qualifications must have commenced is therefore up to and 
including the 1997/98 academic year. In the case of the EFTA countries to which the 
EEA Agreement applies, the deadline is up to and including the 1996/97 academic year 
for Iceland and Norway and up to and including the 1997/98 academic year for 
Liechtenstein. 
2. In its case-lav/, the Court of Justice has drawn a clear distinction between the 
"established rights" arrangements (Chapter III) and the common arrangements provided 
for in Chapter II in respect of qualifications awarded after the aforementioned dates. 
According to the Court, the open arrangements enshrined in Articles 7 to 9 of the 
Directive contrast with the closed, special and exceptional arrangements by virtue of 
"established rights". The articles setting out those arrangements must therefore be 
interpreted strictly and rule out any broader interpretation or any interpretation by 
analogy. The Court clearly spelt out those principles in its judgment of 9 August 1994 in 
Case C-477/93 Dreessen v Conseil National de l'Ordre des Architectes de Belgique. 
3. In that connection, Ireland requested in 1990 that an additional qualification be added to 
the list of Irish diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications 
recognized by virtue of established rights. This request was worded as follows: 
"the following additional qualification to Article 11(f) of the Directive- a certificate 
issued by the competent authorities to the effect that a person, who, on the date of entry 
into force of this Directive, had, over a period of at least five years prior to that date, 
pursued architectural activities, the nature and importance of which in the opinion of the 
competent authorities give that person an established right to pursue those activities". 
The Commission rejected the Irish request. As has already been pointed out, the 
arrangements in question are special and exceptional, and qualifications can be added to 
the list only in genuinely extraordinary circumstances, as when countries join the Union. 
Throwing the matter open more than ten years after the Directive was adopted would be 
tantamount to calling its overall balance into question. 
In addition, the qualification proposed by the Irish authorities consisted of a simple 
attestation to the effect that the persons concerned liad pursued architectural activitie? (a 
field neither defined nor regulated in Ireland) which, in the opinion of the Irish authorities, 
gave them an established right. This is therefore a different case to those described in the 
seventh and eighth indents of Article 11(h) (Netherlands) and the second and third indents 
of Article 11 (i) (United Kingdom) given that in those two Member States, die 
qualifications concerned by the indents in question (which appeared to be somewhat 
similar to the amendment proposed by Ireland) referred to attestations of competence 
and/or registration, such registration being required in order to hold the professional title 
of architect and being non-existent in Ireland. 
4 The Dutch authorities have also proposed amendments in respect of "established rights". 
They would like Article 12 to be simplified as its wording is so complex that it is difficult 
to determine which documents ("certificates") have to be recognized by the Member 
States. This concerns (at least) two certificates: 
1. A certificate to the effect that its holder was authorized to bear the professional title 
of architect before the implementation of this Directive, and 
2. A certificate to the effect that its holder exercised the activities in question for at 
least three consecutive years during the five years preceding "the issue of the 
certificate". 
The problem is how to determine the connection between these two certificates and the 
exact scope of the second certificate. Should it be understood as meaning that the 
interested party effectively exercised the activities in question, for at least three consecutive 
years during the five years preceding the issue of the first certificate (consequently, hi any 
event, prior to 1985/87) or during the five years preceding the issue of the certificate 
required of him, for example in 1995 (i.e. between 1990 and 1995)? 
In the first case, the requirement that a certificate be presented attesting to professional 
experience can be withdrawn, according to the Dutch authorities. Mutual, trust between 
the Member States is required, whereby established rights acquired in the more or less 
distant past in a Member State must be recognized by the other Member States as well. 
In the second case, this requirement should be explicitly included in Article 12. The 
Dutch authorities therefore propose that Article 12 be simplified or reworded. 
The article in question was clarified by Advocate-General Darmon in his conclusions 
(points 28 to 32) in the Dreessen case (C-477/93), where firstly, he stated that the 
regulations in question were those of the Member State that awarded the certificate in 
question, which could refer only to the activity carried out on the territory of that 
Member State. While Article 12 "requires each Member Stats to give effect to a 
certificate issued to a Community national by another Member State relating to the 
exercise by that national of activities as an architect for a specified length of time, such a 
certificate- as is shown by the reference to 'such regulations'- can relate only to 
activities exercised in the territory of the State issuing the certificate. Consequently, a 
Community national who has exercised his professional activities in one Member State 
exclusively cannot rely on any certificate which may have been issued by another 
10 
Member State relating to such activities" (points 31 and 32 of the conclusions). In 
addition, the decisive period is that preceding notification of Directive 85/384/EEC -
5 August 1985 - as regards the first indent and that preceding implementation of the 
Directive (in any event, by 5 August 1987 at the latest) as regards the second indent. By 
those dates (at the latest) the interested parties must have been authorized to hold the 
professional title of architect and also meet the conditions governing the right to take up 
activities in the field of architecture. For these reasons, the Commission takes the view 
that it is not necessary to amend the article in question. 
The Dutch authorities have also requested an amendment to the eighth indent of Article 
11(h) on the grounds that the age condition is an impediment. They propose deleting it 
and replacing it by a reference to relevant professional experience of ten years prior to 
the entry into force of Directive 85/384/EEC. However, the final sentence of 
Article 11(h) shows that the provision in question is transitional and provisional in 
nature and will ultimately be repealed within the Netherlands. To replace it at this 
juncture would be contrary to the general disposition of this provision and to the general 
equilibrium of the established rights arrangements. 
Accordingly, the Commission does not envisage proposing any amendments to the list 
of established rights, although Article 15, which is evidently now obsolete, should be 
repealed. 
ARTICLES 16 TO 32 
The Commission takes the view that any amendments concerning freedom of establishment 
and freedom to provide services must essentially be designed to clarify the procedures for 
authorizing persons to take up architectural activities with a view to streamlining them, and 
to amend or repeal articles which no longer serve any purpose. 
To this end, it is proposed that Article 24 of the Directive be amended so as to make a clear 
distinction between cases of establishment and cases of provision of services (a point also 
raised by the Netherlands). Article 24 stipulates that migrants must furnish proof of no 
previous bankruptcy and of their sound financial standing. This requirement is often 
extremely onerous for providers of services. In addition, the reference in Article 24(1) to 
the prior application of Articles 17 and 18 (provisions specific to the right of establishment) 
is not consistent with the provision of services. 
It is therefore proposed that a sentence be inserted into Article 24(1) to the effect that the 
information furnished pursuant to Articles 17 and 18 applies to cases of establishment and 
that, in cases of provision of services, it is Article 22 that applies. 
By contrast, the Commission cannot accept the Dutch request that the central registration 
system existing in the Netherlands be made mandatory. This is because, assuming that it is 
correctly transposed into national law, Article 28 in its present form is sufficient to resolve 
any problems arising in this connection. 
11 
Lastiy, traditional provisions concerning transposai of the Directive are to be added. The 
time-limit for transposai is 31 December 1999. 
VI. THIRB COUNTRIES AND ENLARGEMENT 
1. The Commission does not envisage taking action on a French proposal that 
diplomas awarded by third countries be assessed by the Advisory Committee. 
Council Recommendation 85/386/EEC of 10 June 1985 concerning holders of a 
diploma in architecture awarded in a third country is not legally binding. In 
addition, under the Council Decision setting it up, the Advisory Committee on 
Education and Training in the Field of Architecture is not competent to assess 
diplomas awarded by third countries. In any event, it does not have 
decision-making powers, even where Community diplomas are concerned, but is 
empowered merely to issue non-binding opinions. 
Regarding Directive 89/48/EEC and the general system for the recogmtion of 
diplomas, such recognition is not automatic, as it is under Directive 85/384/EEC. In 
addition, diplomas awarded by third countries qualify for Community recognition 
under the general system only after the holders of such diplomas (Community 
nationals) have acquired three years' professional experience attested by the 
Member State which first recognized the diploma. 
It should be noted that a similar proposal concerning the medical professions was 
rejected by the authorities of the Member States and that the French position failed 
to win support at the October 1995 meeting of the Ad Hoc Group of Senior 
Officials Responsible for the Free Movement of Architects. 
Lastly, the matters referred to fall within the remit of the Community and the 
Member States (Opinion 1/94 of the Court of Justice of 15 November 1994) in so 
far as the Community does not. have exclusive competence in cases involving 
third-country nationals. And the fact is that a not inconsiderable number of cases 
concern nationals of third countries. 
For the above reasons, the Commission does not feel that the responsibility for 
assessing diplomas awarded by third countries can be assigned to the Advisory 
Committee on Education and Training in die Field of Architecture. '•b 
It should also be borne in mind that in June 1994 the Advisory Committee adopted 
a declaration in which it expressed the wish to be consulted, in the event of future 
enlargements, on the list of qualifications in architecture awarded by countries 
applying for accession and recognized by virtue of established rights. The 
Committee also expressed its concern with regard to certain qualifications in 
architecture recognized under the EEA Agreement and at the time of the 1995 
enlargement, also by virtue of established rights. The declaration was transmitted to 
the representatives of the Member States at the October 1994 meeting of the Ad 
Hoc Group of Senior Officials Responsible for the Free Movement of Architects. 
12 
VII. CONCLUSION 
In the light of the above, the Commission is considering presenting a proposal for a 
directive amending Directive 85/384/EEC. In accordance with Article 3b of the EC Treaty, 
this proposal will comprise only amendments which are necessary. Ultimately, once the 
general system is operating more smoothly, thought should be given to whether architecture 
should be integrated into the general system set out in Directive 89/48/EEC. In this 
connection, it should be noted that the Commission has submitted a report on the state of 
application of the general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas 
(COM(96) 46) drawn up in accordance with Article 13 of Directive 89/48/EEC and which 
states that it is not yet possible to reach any final conclusions on the general system and that 
the review of Directive 92/51 /EEC which is scheduled to take place in 1999 will afford the 
Commission an opportunity to re-examine the functioning of the general system as a whole. 
In view of the accession of new Member States, it will also be necessary to discuss the 
future of the Advisory Committee and to envisage replacing, in the longer term, the current 
procedure for assessing diplomas (Articles 7 to 9 of the Directive) by a committee 
procedure along the lines of that provided for in Article 15 of Directive 92/51/EEC. 
The draft proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive would probably be 
structured along the following lines: 
(1) Reminder that, pursuant to Article 30 of Directive 85/384/EEC, the Commission is 
obliged to review that Directive on the basis of experience and, if necessary, to 
submit proposals for amendments after consulting the Advisory Committee; 
(2) Clarification of the procedure provided for in Article 8 of the Directive, by setting 
for the Commission a deadline by which to contact the Advisory Committee, given 
that doubts are very often expressed towards the end of the period allowed for the 
purpose; 
(3) Repeal of Article 15, which is now obsolete; 
(4) Amendment of Article 24(1) in order to draw a clear distinction between cases of 
establishment and cases of provision of services, since the requisite formalities 
concerning financial standing are unduly onerous for providers of services and may 
duplicate the arrangements provided for in Article 22(3) and those (concerning 
establishment only) set out in Articles 17 and 18; 
(5) Deadline for transposai set at 31 December 1999. 
The intention at present is to transmit this report initially to Parliament and the Council, for 
information, and to the Economic and Social Committee and the Advisory Committee on 
Education and Training in the Field of Architecture so that any observations made by them 
can be taken into account before a formal proposal amending Directive 85/384/EC is 
presented. 
13 
ANNEX 
REPORTS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
III/D/5149/4/8 8 Report and recommendations on 
training in architecture: practical 
training and experience (adopted on 
30 May 1989) 
III/D/5244/5/89 Recommendation on the duration of This recommendation was 
architectural education and training not accepted by all 
(adopted on 14 March 1990) Member States 
III/D/9033/3/89 Report and recommendations on 
relationships in the teaching and 
practice of architecture (adopted on 
14 March 1990) 
III/D/9125/3/89 Reflections and recommendations 
on Article 3 (adopted on 
14 March 1990) 
III/D/5009/3/90 Report and recommendations on 
post-diploma education and training 
in architecture (adopted on 
14 March 1990) 
III/F/5326/7/90 Report and recommendations on 
training of teachers: ethics and 
practice (adopted on 
23 October 1991) 
III/F/5359/8/90 Report and recommendations on 
education and training as 
preparation for full practice as 
supervisors of works (adopted on 
23 October 1991) 
III/F/5184/4/92 Report and recommendation for This report and 
amending Article 4 of recommendation was not 
Directive 85/384/EEC (adopted on accepted by all 
6 October 1992) Member States 
14 
III/F/5 043/6/92 Report and recommendations on 
project work in faculties of 
architecture (adopted on 
20 October 1993) 
III/F/5182/3/93 Report on the amendments to the This report was not accepted 
sixth, seventh and eighth recitals by all Member States 
and to Article 23 of 
Directive 85/384/EEC to take 
account of the report and 
recommendations on amending 
Article 4 (doc. III/F/5184/4/92) 
(adopted on 20 October 1993) 
III/F/5168/5/93 Report and recommendations on 
training in architecture - personal 
end-of-course work: content and 
assessment (adopted on 
20 October 1993) 
III/F/5172/7/92 Report and recommendations on 
access to architectural studies 
(adopted on 15 June 1994) 
15 
OPINIONS 
III/D/1661/1/87 Opinion concerning compliance of a Negative opinion 
Belgian diploma with Articles 3 and Diploma not published in the 
4 of Directive 85/384/EEC (adopted OJ 
on 29 July 1987) 
III/D/1662/1/87 Opinion concerning compliance of a Negative opinion 
Belgian diploma with Articles 3 and Diploma not published in the 
4 of Directive 85/384/EEC (adopted OJ 
on 29 July 1987) 
III/D/1663/1/87 Opinion concerning compliance of a Negative opinion, but 
German diploma with Articles 3 and diploma published in 
4 of Directive 85/384/EEC (adopted OJ C 88, 19.10.1988 
on 29 July 1987) 
III/D/1664/1/8 7 Opinion concerning compliance of Negative opinion 
certain Portuguese diplomas with Diploma not published in the 
Articles 3 and 4 of OJ 
Directive 85/384/EEC (adopted on 
29 July 1987) 
III/D/1665/1/87 Opinion concerning compliance of Positive opinion 
certain United Kingdom diplomas Diploma published in 
with Articles 3 and 4 of OJC 88, 19.10.1988 
Directive 85/384/EEC (adopted on 
29 July 1987) 
III/D/895/1/88 Opinion concerning compliance of Negative opinion 
certain Italian diplomas with Diploma not published in the 
Articles 3 and 4 of OJ 
Directive 85/384/EEC (adopted on 
13 April 1988) 
III/D/8303/3/93 Opinion concerning compliance Negative opinion 
with Articles 3 and 4 of Diploma not published in the 
Directive 85/384/EEC of the Italian OJ 
diplomas in "Ingegneria edile" 
(adopted on 19 October 1993) 
III/D/8304/3/93 Opinion concerning compliance Negative opinion, but 
with Articles 3 and 4 of diploma published in 
Directive 85/384/EEC of the French OJ C 350, 10.12.1994 
architecture diploma DPLG (94/C 350/06) 
(adopted on 19 October 1993) 
16 
III/D/8314/1/94 Opinion on compliance of the 
"Licenciatura em Arquitectura" 
awarded by the Escola Superior 
Artistica of Oporto with Articles 3 
and 4 of Directive 85/384/EEC 
(adopted on 15 June 1994) Positive opinion 
Diploma published in 
OJC 65, 16.3.1995 
(95/C 65/03) 
17 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM{97) 350 final 
13 H m 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-343-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-22389-1 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
if