EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 19.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1559 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
Accompanying the document 
Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE 
COUNCIL  
amending Directive 2005/36/EC on the recogn ition of professional qualifications and 
Regulation on administrative  cooperation through the Internal Market Information 
System 
{COM(2011) 883 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1558 final}  
 
EN 2   EN 1. INTRODUCTION  
The Professional Qualifications Directive1 defines the conditions for the recognition of 
professional qualifications in cases  of establishment in another Member States as well as the 
conditions for moving to another Member State on a temporary basis.  
The modernisation of the system of recognition of professional qua lifications is one of the 12 
levers of the Single Market Act aiming to creat e growth and boost confidence. It is based on a 
thorough evaluation of the Directive conducted between March 2010 and May 2011. 
2. SUBSIDIARITY  
The rules governing the recognition of professi onal qualifications are laid down in Directive 
2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualif ications. Changes to this acquis imply the 
modification of this Directiv e but not a new Directive. 
3. OBJECTIVES  
Based on the analysis of the problems presented in  the next section, the main objectives of the 
initiative are to facilitate the mobility of prof essionals and the intra-EU trade in services, 
address the challenge of filling high-skill jobs and offer more possibilities for job seekers. 
4. PROBLEM DEFINITION , POLICY OPTIONS AND THEIR IMPACTS  
The identification of the problem areas derives mainly from the outcome of the evaluation and 
from the reactions to the Green Pape r the Commission issued on 22 June 2011.  
4.1. Information and e-government for citizens 
Professionals seeking the recognition of their qualifications still experience difficulties in 
identifying the right competent authority a nd the documents they need to submit.  
Another issue concerns the limited use of electronic means for completing recognition 
procedures. In particular, health professions a nd job seekers do not benef it from the facilities 
offered by the Points of Single Contact (PSC) set up in the context of th e Services Directive. 
The impact assessment identified 4 potential opti ons: 1). No action at EU level; 2). Strengthen 
the national contact points; 3). Member States should provide a central online point to access 
information and complete recognition procedures; 4). Extend the scope of the PSC. 
Option 4 is the preferred option as it foresees that all information a nd procedures must be 
made available by Member States through the PSC , to which professionals are the most likely 
to revert to.  
                                                 
1 Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the 
recognition of professional qualifications (OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p.22) 
 
EN 3   EN 4.2. Efficiency of recognition procedures 
4.2.1.  Length of recognition procedures 
The Directive foresees specific deadlines fo r processing of recogni tion requests (3 or 4 
months). These deadlines do not  seem to be adapted to the needs of the labour market. 
Moreover, it appears that they are often not respected. The increasing use of the Internal 
Market Information System (IMI) in has fac ilitated the exchange of information between 
competent authorities but does not seem to ha ve accelerated the procedures for citizens.  
Four different options are examined: 1). No policy change; 2). Stronger enforcement by the 
Commission in individual  cases; 3). Shorten the deadlines in  the Directive for all professions; 
4). Involve the home Member State and create  a European professional mobility card. 
Option 4 should be preferred since it addresse s the problem upstream and creates favourable 
conditions to accelerate the recognition procedure. It foresees stricter deadlines but provides 
the necessary instruments (professional card ) to meet them. The option requires limited 
investments from the Commission and would ha ve positive impact on the recognition costs in 
Member States. However, it could require addi tional efforts from some Member States.  
4.2.2.  Justification and organisation of compensation measures 
Problems in this area concern mainly the lack of justification of th e decisions taken by the 
competent authorities and the organisa tion of the compensation measures.  
The impact assessment sets out the following  options: 1). No policy change; 2). Develop 
comprehensive guidelines on the use and or ganisation of compen sation measures; 3). 
Optimise the use of compensation measures; 4). Option 3 and ensure regular organisation of 
compensation measures. 
The conclusion is that Option 4 is the most effec tive since it addresses all identified problems.  
4.2.3.  Absence of common platforms 
Common platforms were introduced in order to facilitate the implementation of the general 
recognition system. Despite attempts at achie ving it, no common platfo rm has so far been 
introduced.  
The impact assessment analyses the following op tions: 1). No action; 2) . Deleting the concept 
of common platforms; 3). Revising the concept of comm on platform; 4). Harmonising 
minimum training requirements for new professions. 
Option 3 offers the most effective solution to  professionals who will obtain the recognition 
without compensation measures.  
4.3. Functioning of the system of automatic recognition 
4.3.1.  Notification of new diplomas 
Evidence from the evaluation demonstrates that the procedure for notifying and examining 
new diplomas in architecture is considered  burdensome. Moreover, the minimum training 
 
EN 4   EN requirements for the 6 professions in the health  sector, mandatory for all Member States, may 
not always be respected on the ground.  
The impact assessment identified the followi ng policy options: 1). No action; 2). National 
compliance function; 3). EU-level compliance body.  
It concludes that Option 2 should be preferred as it would create bett er conditions for more 
timely notifications of diplomas, ease the burden associated with  the examination of diplomas 
and ensure the respect of the minimum training requirements.  
4.3.2.  Adjustments of the minimu m training requirements 
The minimum training requirements defined in  the Directive do not necessarily reflect 
scientific and technical progress and the recent educational reforms. 
a). Clarification of minimum tr aining periods for doctors, nurses and midwives: the minimum 
duration of the training is expr essed in terms of years or trai ning hours. This gave rise to 
diverging interpretations whether the two criteria constitute two options or are cumulative. The following options are considered: 1). No acti on; 2). Exclude one of the two criteria; 3). 
Combination of the two criteria and adaptation of the number of years for doctors; 4). Option 
3 and introduce a reference to ECTS (European  Credit Transfer and Accumulation System).  
The preferred option is Option 4,  as it clarifies the legal pr ovisions (number of years and 
hours apply together) and offers the necessary fl exibility for doctors (n umber of training hours 
to be distributed over at  least five years).  
b). Admission requirements for nurses and midw ives: the admission requirement for nurse 
and midwifery training is currently minimum 10  years of general educ ation. Considering the 
evolution of these professions, stakeholders argued that the training should be raised to 12 
years of general education as it is already the case in 24 Member States. The following options are examined: 1). No action; 2). Require  12 years for both professions; 3). Update the 
requirement only for midwives; 4). Require 12 years or equiva lent for both professions and 
foresee a transition period.  
The preferred option is Option 4. It enables Member States to educate more skilled and 
independent nurses and midwives and maintains trust in nurse and midwife qualifications 
obtained in an EU Member State.  
c). Opening up new pharmacies: a derogation adopted in 1985 al lows Member States not to 
give effect to the recognition of a pharmacist's  qualification for the setting up or management 
of new pharmacies. This is a discrimination against EU citizen. The impact assessment 
analysed the following options: 1). No action; 2). Repeal this provision. Option 2 is the 
preferred option as it ends th e existing discrimination base d on a foreign qualification. 
d). Minimum training requirements for archit ects: they no longer reflect the prevailing 
standard in architectural e ducation. Moreover, requirements for fully qualifying as an 
architect, notably practical experience, are not covered by the Directive. The following options are considered: 1). Do nothing; 2). Increase minimum dur ation of training from 4 to 5 
years; 3). Increase duration to 5 years and includ e supervised practical experience of 2 years; 
4). Set the training of architec ts to 6 years, consisting of minimum 4 years of university 
training and minimum 1 year of practical experience.  
 
EN 5   EN Option 4 is preferred since it br ings the Directive's requirements more closely in line with the 
commonly accepted standards.  
4.3.3.  Automatic recognition based on professional experience 
Feedback received from competent authorities sh ows that the Internati onal Standard Industrial 
Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC) from 1958, the ba sis of Annex IV, does not 
always allow for an identifica tion of the professions which should benefit from automatic 
recognition. This creates legal un certainty for professionals.  
The following options are considered in the im pact assessment: 1). No action; 2). Immediate 
replacement of the ISIC classi fication of 1958 by another classi fication; 3). Update of the 
ISIC classification of 1958 with the most r ecent ISIC classification dated 2008; 4). Introduce 
more flexibility in order to allow a modernisation of the classification in the future. 
Option 4 should be the preferred one: it allows reviewing the classifica tion of activities at a 
later stage, drawing on the re sults of a study which would a ssess the impacts on different 
stakeholders. 
4.4. Establishing in another Member State 
4.4.1.  Qualifications levels 
If there is a difference of two or more quali fication levels between the qualification of the 
applicant and the qualification re quired in the host Member State, the applicant is excluded 
from the benefits of the Directive, such as  procedural safeguards. The relevance of the 
qualifications levels in the Directive has been questioned, mainly for its lack of consistency with the European Qualifications Framework
2.  
The following options are considered in the impact  assessment: 1). No ac tion at EU level; 2). 
Simplify the classification of education leve ls; 3). Remove the classification from the 
Directive. 
Option 2 is the preferred one as it would reduce the current legal uncertainty related to the 
applications examined under the Treaty. The existing classification would continue to 
constitute a reference point for comparing qualifications.  
4.4.2.  Partial access 
Economic activities associated with a particul ar profession can differ significantly from one 
Member State to another. An aptitude test or an adaptation period may not always compensate for these differences. As an alternative to co mpleting new training in the host Member State, 
the European Court of Justice laid down th e principle of partial access to a profession
3.  
The impact assessment considers the following  options: 1). No action; 2). Introduce the 
possibility of partial access in th e Directive for all professions; 3). Introduce the possibility of 
partial access in the Directive but exclude pr ofessions with public health implications. 
                                                 
2 Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on the establishment 
of the European Qualifications Fr amework for lifelong learning, OJ 2008/C 111/01  
3 Case C-330/03 of 19 January 2006, European Court reports 2006 Page I-801  
 
EN 6   EN Option 3 is the preferred option. It can reduce ob stacles to mobility while taking into account 
consumer protection and patient safety.  
4.4.3.  Mobility from non-regulating to regula ting Member States (establishment) 
Professionals coming from non-regulating countr ies are currently obliged to demonstrate 2 
years of professional e xperience in the last 10 years or prove that they have completed 
"regulated education and training" geared to the specific profession.  
The impact assessment discusses the followi ng options: 1). No action; 2). Broaden the 
concept of regulated educa tion and training; 3). Remove all specific requirements. 
Option 3 is the preferred option since it would simplify the administra tive requirements for 
professionals coming from non-regulating countries.  
4.5. Moving on temporary basis 
The introduction of a specific regime for the fr ee provision of cross-borde r services has been 
the major innovation of the Professional Qu alifications Direct ive in 2005. However, 
competent authorities reported lim ited experience. This might be  linked to the legal to the 
requirements imposed on professionals and to the lack of clarity of  some provisions.  
4.5.1.  Requirements imposed on professionals from non-regulating Member States 
The following options are presented: 1). No ac tion; 2). Broaden the concept of "regulated 
education and training"; 3). Exempt pr ofessionals accompanying consumers.  
Option 3 offers flexibility and a more effective solution even if limited to a smaller proportion 
of professionals. Activities with  public health and safety risk  should be excluded from Option 
3. 
4.5.2.  Temporary mobility with prior check of the qualifications 
Several options are discussed: 1). No action; 2). Member St ates would produce a list of 
professions with health and sa fety implications; 3). The Commi ssion would define a list of 
professions with health and safety implications.  
Option 2 should be preferred because it gives mo re clarity to the existing provisions without 
important additional costs.  
4.5.3.  Lack of clarity on the scope of the regime 
The impact assessment considers the following op tions: 1). No action; 2). Provide a guidance 
document to competent authorities; 3). Sp ecify a maximum duration/frequency for the 
"temporary and occasional provision of services".  
It concludes that Option 2 is the preferred one as it presents a non-binding and flexible 
solution in line with the Court case law while  providing the necessary guidance to competent 
authorities.  
 
EN 7   EN 4.6. Scope of the Directive 
The Directive applies only to a certain extent to  the holders of third country qualifications and 
does not cover not fully qualified professionals and notaries.  
4.6.1.  Not fully qualified professionals 
The following options are discussed: 1). No action;  2). Enlarge the scope of the Directive; 3). 
Option 2 and clarify the situati on in the home Member State.  
Option 3 is the most efficient solution as it not only organises the movement of the 
professional to the host Member State but al so his return to the home Member State. 
4.6.2.  Third country qualifications 
Three options are discussed: 1). No action; 2) . Reduce the requirement from 3 to 2 years of 
professional experience; 3). Enlarge the scope of the Directive to cover the recognition of third country qualifications (f or the first recognition).  
Option 1 should be preferred as the two other options are not supported by Member States and 
prove to be over ambitious at this moment. 
4.6.3.  Notaries 
The impact assessment considers the following op tions: 1). No action; 2). Excluding notaries 
from the Directive; 3). Extendi ng the Directive to cases of establishment ; 4). Establishment 
with limited scope of provision of services; 5). Full application of the Directive.  
It concludes that option 4 responds best to the specificities of the profession. 
4.7. Protection of patients 
Public health emerged as a particular issu e during the evaluation of the Directive.  
4.7.1.  Guarantees on the status  of professionals 
Some stakeholders, even a few governments, suggested making the continuous professional 
development (CPD) of health professionals manda tory under the Directive. There is also a 
concern of competent authorities on doctors or nurses who have been out of practice for many 
years or might be barred from practising due to disciplinary or penal sanctions.  
The following options are discussed: 1). No ac tion; 2). Adding new requirements on CPD and 
recent professional experience; 3). Adding new requirements with respect to recent professional experience; 4). In troduction of an alert mechanism combined with increased 
transparency between Member States on CPD.  
Option 4 is the preferred one as  it effectively reduces risks of health professionals moving 
from one Member State to another whils t not longer allowed to practice.  
4.7.2.  Guarantees on language skills  
Language knowledge of professionals is a sensit ive issue for patients. The Directive imposes 
an obligation upon the professiona ls but does not prescribe a ny particular means by which 
 
EN 8   EN Member States should enforce the obligation. Concerns have been raised in this regard for 
health professionals.  
The impact assessment analyses the following op tions: 1). No action; 2). Introduce systematic 
checking of language skills on he alth professionals and harmonise  it at EU level; 3). Clarify 
the rules on how to enforce check ing language skills for professi onals on a case by case basis.  
Option 3 is the preferred option as it ensures a balance between the need to ensure patient 
safety and the required effectiven ess of recognition procedures.  
4.8. Lack of transparency and justificat ion of qualifications requirements in 
regulated professions  
800 categories of professions are regulated within the EU. The reserved ta sks associated to 
regulated professions as well as  the type of qualification requir ed can vary significantly from 
one Member State to another.  
Given the current debate on the number of re gulated professions (and the request of the 
European Parliament to reduce th e number), it seems first of a ll necessary to ensure a greater 
transparency and justificati on of regulated professions.  
The impact assessment examines the following op tions: 1) No action at EU level; 2) Ensure 
greater transparency on the regulation of the professions; 3) Option 2 and launch a mutual 
evaluation exercise; 4) Option 2 and introduce a specific regime for professions regulated in 
only one Member State.  
Option 3 should be preferred, as it would effec tively improve transparency and encourages 
Member States to assess and compare their national regulations. 
5. OVERALL IMPACTS OF THE PACKAGE  
Policy options are combined in a way to ensure  the internal coherence of the initiative. The 
impact on the stakeholders is always consider ed as well as the administrative burden and 
compliance costs created by th e preferred policy options.  
6. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
Specific indicators have been set to monito r the progress on the implementation of the 
Directive. Reporting obligations have also been foreseen in order to assess the functioning of 
the different recognition systems.