3. 4. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 75/5 
3.3. There is questionable validity of the Com­
mission's apparent assumption that prohibited com­
pounds require highly frequent sampling; nevertheless, 
noting the Commission's recent proposals regarding 
Group II substances making them prohibited sub­
stances, should not the testing level be changed, as for 
substances in Group I, to reflect their new-found danger 
to public health. 
3.4. One wonders what is the scientific justification 
for subjecting pesticides to less rigorous requirements 
than that proposed for anabolics and antibiotics given 
the known toxicity of the organophosphorous com­
pounds, their persistence and the fact that there is 
frequently inadequate supervision. 
3.5. It might be wiser, or at least of interest, to know 
which substances are to be tested for and then tailor 
the categories accordingly. It is difficult to grasp the 
logic of the proposed classification, which seems to be partly by similarity of function, partly by similarity 
of legal status and partly by similarity of analytical 
methodology. 
A more pragmatic system might be devised based on 
four categories of priorities for the assay of the whole 
range of compounds. Priorities might thus be allocated 
on the basis of: 
(a) importance to the consumer; 
(b) practicality of tests available; 
(c) amount used and conditions of use; 
(d) potential for misuse. 
3.6. Care should be exercised in not making the 
list of substances too specific and too comprehensive. 
Room must be left for flexibility, to allow for both 
additions and deletions. Since when, for instance, has 
arsenic been a heavy metal (Chapter 1.1 Group V) ? 
One seriously doubts whether there is any rationale for 
listing some of the others in that group at all. 
Done at Brussels, 29 January 1986. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on a general system for the recognition of 
higher education diplomas (*) 
(86/C 75/02) 
On 26 July 1985 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee 
under Article 100 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 January 1986, in the light of 
the report by Mr De Bievre. 
At its 233rd plenary session (meeting of 29 January 1986) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following opinion by 55 votes to 3, with 6 abstentions (vote recorded). 
The Committee approves the proposal for a Directive, subject to the following general and 
specific comments: 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee notes that little headway has 
been made so far on the right of establishment and the 
OJ No C 217, 28. 8. 1985, p. 3. freedom to provide services, largely because of the 
complexity of the task of harmonizing occupational 
qualifications; this situation is very disadvantageous for 
persons who have obtained higher education diplomas 
or professional qualifications in their country of origin 
but are unable to use them in other Member States. 
No C 75/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 3. 4. 86 
1.2. The present proposal is part and parcel of the 
activities in connection with the White Paper on the 
completion of the internal market and fits into a new 
political context which has emerged in various stages: 
— the European Council held in Fontainebleau in June 
1984; 
— the setting-up of the ad hoc Committee for a 
People's Europe (Adonnino Committee), whose 
work has led to the new approach; 
— the European Council held in Brussels in March 
1985 (which called upon the Commission to take 
steps in this area in the light of the findings of the 
Adonnino Committee). 
1.3. The Commission is seeking to achieve a real 
breakthrough on the right of establishment by intro­
ducing a new system whereby holders of higher edu­
cation diplomas obtained (after a course of study lasting 
at least 3 years, following a complete course of second­
ary education) in one Member State (country of origin) 
may pursue the profession for which they are qualified 
in another Member State (host country) under certain 
conditions. This system does not involve prior harmon­
ization of education/training and provision is made for 
compensation through relevant professional experience 
or a period of supervised practice in cases where highep 
education diplomas are not equivalent. 
1.4. The Committee feels that the title of the pro­
posal for a Directive is potentially misleading, since 
the purpose of the new system is to evaluate higher 
education diplomas entitling the holder to pursue a 
corresponding professional activity in the country of 
origin, in relation to similar higher education diplomas 
in the host country; it does not seek a priori to provide 
recognition of the equivalence of higher education dip­
lomas. 
1.4.1. The title of the proposal should therefore be 
amended so that it is clear that it concerns the recog­
nition of higher education diplomas and the evaluation 
of any differences between them, in connection with 
the right of establishment and the freedom to provide 
services. 
1.5. The Committee approves measures to facilitate 
the free movement of Member State nationals who wish 
to practise their profession in a Member State other 
than that in which they obtained their higher education 
diploma, provided adequate steps are taken to ensure 
that the professional activities in question are exercised 
competently and responsibly in the host country. 
1.5.1. According to the Committee the recognition 
of diplomas should involve not only the recognition of 
certificates but also, if needs be, the entire process 
whereby a person becomes qualified to practise a pro­
fession, i.e. the course of study, the period of supervised 
practice and/or professional experience. However, as used in this proposal the word 'diploma' is restricted 
to covering higher education and it must be clearly 
defined as such, to remove any ambiguity. 
1.6. The characteristics of the new system, and the 
Committee's comments, are set out below: 
(a) the system is general, covering all those who hold 
higher education diplomas and wish to exercice a 
professional activity away from where they received 
their training. The system does not, however, cover 
professions for which other Community measures 
have come into force (e.g. physicians, architects, 
etc.) or professions where the abolition of restric­
tions is dependent upon prior coordination of the 
conditions for their exercice in the various Member 
States (Article 57(3) of the Treaty); 
(b) it is based on comparison of training levels, with a 
view not to prior harmonization of training levels, 
but to a system of compensation based primarily 
on professional experience and/or the completion 
of a period of supervised practice. The Committee 
considers that in certain cases equivalence will be 
achievable only through additional education. It is 
important that criteria for assessing the equivalence 
or non-equivalence of the various levels of training 
be systematized as far as possible, to ensure that 
the additional professional experience required to 
compensate for differences in training is comparable 
within and between Member States. The national 
and Community professional organizations directly 
concerned should be involved in the establishment 
of these criteria by the Commission and possibly, 
depending on the country, play a part in monitoring 
the application of these criteria; 
(c) it requires cooperation between Member States, on 
the one hand, and with the Commission on the 
other; it is essential that the Member States, acting 
together with the professional organizations con­
cerned make specific arrangements for receiving 
applicants and organize the monitoring of the new 
system; they should make these arrangements 
known by the publication of a register that should 
also include a list of the professional organizations 
that are to contribute to the proper functioning of 
the system; 
(d) guarantees are offered to EEC nationals wishing to 
make use of the system; 
(e) the system is evolutive (gradual introduction of 
arrangements, two-yearly reports to be submitted 
by the Member States to the Commission on the 
application of the system, reports after five years 
from the Commission to the Council on the progress 
made in the application of the system (Article 12)). 
3. 4. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 75/7 
1.7. The system does not preclude the introduction 
at a future date of specific Community rules on certain 
professional activities (or the activities of certain pro­
fessions). On the entry into force of a sectoral Directive 
the professional activities in question would no longer 
be subject to the terms of the present proposal for a 
Directive. 
1.8. Over and above the application of the provisions 
of the present Directive and resultant national 
measures, it is obvious that applicants will have to 
conform to any other national rules on the pursuit 
of the professional activities in question in the host 
country. 
1.9. The Committee sees the new system as a first 
step which should be followed by a similar approach in 
other instances where differences in education/training, 
and consequently diplomas, prevent the exercise of 
certain activities in accordance with the freedom of 
establishment. 
2. Specific Comments 
2.1. Article 1 
2.1.1. Subparagraph (a) 
2.1.1.1. The Committee requests that the end of this 
subparagraph be amended to read as follows: 
'...secondary education approved by a Member 
State'. 
2.1.2. Subparagraph (c) 
2.1.2.1. The Committee asks that the end of this 
subparagraph be amended to read as follows: 
'...profession concerned in a Member State or else­
where under the control of a person qualified in a 
Member State.' 
2.1.3. Subparagraph (d) 
2.1.3.1. The Committee feels that, irrespective of 
where the period of supervised practice takes place, it 
should be supervised by an EEC national qualified in 
the profession in question. Subparagraph (d) should 
therefore be amended to read: 
'... under the supervision of a Member State 
national who is a qualified member of that pro­
fession, it being understood that such supervised 
practice may be accompanied by a period of asses­
sed further training, shall be subject to rules laid 
down by the host Member State and shall be 
evidenced by a certificate'. 
2.1.3.2. Furthermore, every possible step should be 
taken to ensure that arrangements are made in the host 
country to receive nationals of other Member States 
wishing to pursue a professional activity there and, 
above all, to provide supervision by a qualified member 
of the profession in question. 2.2. Article 3 
2.2.1. The Committee interprets 'on the same con­
ditions as apply to its own nationals' as meaning that 
Member State nationals as referred to in paragraph 1 
taking up a profession should observe all the statutory 
provisions governing that profession in the host Mem­
ber State and be subject to the professional code in 
force in that country, thereby becoming a full member 
of the profession, with all the rights and obligations 
pertaining thereto. 
2.2.2. The Committee calls for the deletion of sub­
paragraph (b) of Article 3. 
2.3. Article 4 
2.3.1. The Committee asks that Article 4(b) be 
amended to read as follows: 
'b) To undertake a period of supervised practice 
not exceeding three years for the purposes of 
qualification adjustment; this practice may be 
in the host Member State or elsewhere under 
the supervision of a member of the profession 
qualified in the host Member State,'. 
2.4. Article 5 
2.4.1. The Committee calls for the deletion of this 
Article. The Directive should cover only Member State 
nationals in possession of a higher education diploma 
(at least three years' study) and not persons holding 
other diplomas. 
2.5. Article 6 
2.5.1. The Committee would ask that the words 
'proof that they have not previously been declared 
bankrupt' be deleted. The other requirements stipulated 
in this Article are sufficient. Furthermore, bankruptcy 
cannot be considered morally reprehensible unless fraud 
is involved. 
2.5.2. The Committee feels that account should also 
be taken of documents issued by a regulatory authority 
(e.g. professional bodies) and in particular the judge­
ments delivered by such bodies in respect of the person 
concerned. 
2.5.3. The second subparagraph of paragraph 1 
should be amended to read: 
'Where the documents referred to in the preceding 
paragraph cannot be issued by the Member State 
from which the foreign national comes, they may 
be replaced ...' 
2.5.4. If there are approved professional bodies in a 
Member State, the latter should establish a register of 
these bodies; if these professional bodies have a code 
of conduct this code should be observed by applicants 
from other Member States wishing to practice the pro­
fession in question. 
2.6. Article 7 
2.6.1. The first paragraph of this Article should be 
deleted, since the Directive is concerned with admission 
No C 75/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 3. 4. 86 
to professions and should deal only with the title relat­
ing to the profession in question in the host country so 
as to prevent the use of different titles—even academic-
—in the pursuit of a profession from confusing con­
sumers of the goods and services provided by the pro­
fession in question. The use of academic titles should 
if necessary be regulated by a special Directive, which 
would entail a certain measure of harmonization at 
Community level (which is not the purpose of the 
present Directive). 
2.6.2. The second paragraph of Article 7 should be 
expanded so as to make it compulsory for persons from 
other Member States to use the same professional title 
or titles as nationals of the host country. decisions referred to in this Directive, it should be 
ensured that the same authorities lay down the con­
ditions and the evaluation criteria for nationals and 
foreigners, so as to avoid discrimination in the admis­
sion to and the pursuit of a professional activity. 
2.9. Article 10 
2.9.1. As regards the first and last indents of the 
second paragraph it would suffice if the report were to 
give a survey of the number and type of decisions taken, 
with an indication of compensatory measures under 
Article 4. 
2.10. Article 11 
2.7, Article 8 
2.7.1. As in the case of Article 6, the Committee 
would ask that the authorities competent to issue certifi­
cates and other documents should include the pro­
fessional bodies, if the latter are authorized or obliged 
to issue such documents under the laws of the country 
concerned. 
2.7.2. With respect to the procedure for examining 
application to pursue a profession, a case law will 
gradually be built up on the basis of decisions taken, 
which will simplify the procedure for similar cases. 
2.8. Article 9 
2.8.1. When designating the competent authorities 
empowered to receive the applications and take the 2.10.1. The Committee considers that the Member 
States should set up the system for dealing with appli­
cations and ensuring coordination provided for in 
Article 9 not later than one year after the entry into 
force of the Directive. 
2.11. Article 12 
2.11.1. As it is impossible at this stage to foresee 
all the difficulties which might be encountered in the 
practical implementation of a new general system for 
the recognition of diplomas, the Committee feels that 
the five-year time limit laid down in this Article for the 
Commission's report to the Council on the state of the 
application of the system and for proposing any changes 
that might be needed is rather long, and that a shorter 
deadline should be set (e.g. three years after the entry 
into force of the Directive). 
Done at Brussels, 29 January 1986. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
APPENDIX 1 
Voting: A roll-call vote was taken on the opinion as a whole. 
The following Committee members, who were either present or represented at the plenary session, voted in 
favour of the opinion: 
Mr Antonsen, Mr Binnenbruck, Mr Bleser, Mr Boddy, Mr Bonety, Mr Breitenstein, Mr Campbell, Mr 
Carroll, Mr Curlis, Mr De Bievre, Mr De Grave, Mr d'Elia, Mr Delia Croce, Mr Drago, Mr Emo Capodilista, 
Mrs Engelen-Kefer, Mr Flum, Mr Fortuyn, Mr Fuller, Mr Geuenich, Mr Glesener, Mr van Greunsven, Mr 
Hammond, Mr Hannon, Mrs Heuser, Mr Jarvis, Mr Jenkins, Mr Kirschen, Mr Kubler, Mr Lojewski, Miss 
Maddocks, Mr Milne, Mr Mols Sorensen, Mr Mourgues, Mr Murphy, Mr Nielsen B., Mr Noordwal, Mr de 
Normann, Mr Poeton, Mr Pronk, Mr Rainero, Mr Roseingrave, Mr Rouzier, Mr Roycroft, Mr Saiu, Mr 
Schmitz, Mr Schoepges, Mr Schwarz, Mr Spijkers, Mrs Strobel, Mr Swift, Mr Van Melckenbeke, Mr Wagner, 
Mr Wick, Mr de Wit. 
The following members, present or represented, voted against: 
Mr Dassis, Mr Pearson, Mr Raftopoulos. 
The following members, present or represented, abstained in the vote: 
Mr Dunet, Mr Kenna, Mr Monier, Sir George Sharp, Mr Storie-Pugh, Mr Tixier. 
3. 4. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 75/9 
APPENDIX 2 
Rejected amendments 
The following amendments submitted in accordance with the Rules of Procedure were rejected by the 
Committee during plenary session discussions: 
Point 1.6. b) 
(Amendment proposed by Mr Storie-Pugh and Mr Tamlin) 
Add: 
'Provision should be made in the proposal for involvement of national professional bodies and their European 
Community-wide organizations, many of which have been involved for several years in assessing the 
comparability of qualifications'. 
Voting 
For: 5, against: 66, abstentions: 12 
Point 1.9 
(Amendment proposed by Mr Pearson and Mr Storie-Pugh) 
After point 1.9 add another paragraph: 
'1.10. The Section however believes that where there are draft Directives prepared and ready for presen­
tation to the Council, concerning the professional levels of qualifications, then these Directives should be 
forwarded to the appropriate Community institutions and the procedures duly completed'. 
Voting 
For: 9, against: majority, abstentions: 9. 
At the end of the general comments: 
(Amendment proposed by Mr Germozzi) 
Add the following text: 
'Although the line taken by the proposed Directive is to be praised, a standard system of compensation based 
on technical criteria for assessing the equivalence of training levels must nevertheless be introduced. Pro­
fessional bodies at national and Community level (including the UEAPME) should be officially involved as 
they are all affected to a certain extent. They should be represented on technical committees set up by the 
national authorities responsible for handling applications to practise a professional activity, and by inter­
national authorities in charge of considering possible compensatory measures. 
More particularly, in addition to the report to be submitted after five years by the Commission to the Council 
on the state of application of the proposed general system (Article 12), it is vital to set in motion the prior 
harmonization of courses of study, syllabuses and examinations, on the one hand, and titles, diplomas and 
rules for entering a profession, on the other. The Directive should set deadlines for initiating this process of 
harmonization and provide for appropriate utilization of the reports submitted by individual Member States 
on the subject. 
Furthermore, by establishing the mutual recognition of titles and diplomas required in order to practise a 
profession, the Directive could set an important precedent for passing specific legislation to guarantee freedom 
of movement—as enshrined in the Treaty of Rome—not only for members of the professions, but also for 
the self-employed in other occupations'. 
Reasons 
Implicit in the text of the amendment. 
Voting 
For: 3, against: large majority. 
Point 2.1 
(Amendment proposed by Mr Storie-Pugh and Mr Tamlin) 
Add: 
'Subparagraph (a) of the Directive should read: 
'... at least three years' full-time study or its part-time equivalent'. 
No C 75/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 3. 4. 86 
However where tivo higher education diplomas recognized by the State as equivalent coexist in a Member 
State and where one of these extends over three years, and the other over two years, the two-year course 
leading to a higher education diploma, certificate or other evidence of formal qualifications, or its recognized 
equivalent, shall be considered to fulfil the condition of duration referred to above pfovided that the higher 
education diplomas awarded on completion of both courses are recognized as equivalent by the State in 
question . 
Voting 
For: 2, against: 70, abstentions: 3. 
Point 2.5.1 
(Amendment proposed by Mr Storie-Pugh and Mr Tamlin) 
Amend the first sentence to read as follows: 
'The question as to whether bankruptcy should be a bar should be decided on a profession by profession 
basis'. 
Voting 
For: 8, against: 40, abstentions: 10. 
Point 2.5.1 
(Amendment proposed by Mr Storie-Pugh and Mr Tamlin) 
Add the following at the end of the first paragraph of Article 6(1): 
'Notwithstanding other provisions, a requirement to adhere to a professional code of conduct shall be taken 
as sufficient evidence'. 
Voting 
For: 2, against: 37, abstentions: 11. 
Point 2.5.4. 
(Amendment proposed by Mr Storie-Pugh, Mr Pearson and Mr Tamlin) 
Amend the words 'this code' to reach: 
'such a code or codes'. 
Voting 
For: 2, against: 38, abstentions: 10. 
Point 2.6.2 
(Amendment proposed by Mr Campbell and Mr Wick). 
Replace this point by the following: 
'The Committee calls for the deletion of Article 7(2)'. 
Reason 
It is not practical for nationals of one Member State to be able to pursue the profession in any other Member 
State with free access, voluntarily or compulsorily, to the professional titles used by the host Member States. 
This would lead to major confusion. 
The proposals which have been made for the creation of a European qualification such as European 
Professional (EP) would be much clearer and could be available to any national qualified within his own 
country wishing to practise in another Member State. 
Voting 
For: 12, against: 38, abstentions: 3.