WRITTEN QUESTION E-2287/96 by Guido Podestà (UPE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Recognition of diplomas

Directives 89/48/EEC ((OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16. )) and 92/51/EEC ((OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 25. )) establish a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education courses lasting at least three years.

These directives allow a Member State to ask a person who has a diploma awarded in another Member State to attend additional courses in order to be able to practise the relevant profession, if there are 'substantial differences' in the level of training according to the legal provisions laid down in the two Member States.

Whilst respecting people's freedom of movement, in view of the frequent cases of 'substantial differences' between qualifications in different countries, what steps does the Commission intend to take to lay down valid objective criteria for comparison to be used in assessing these differences?

Furthermore, does the Commission not consider that in order to offer all the citizens of the European Union equal opportunities, there should now be full mutual recognition by the Member States of diplomas awarded inside the European Union?

If not, what steps does the Commission intend to take to achieve full mutual recognition in the near future?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (5 November 1996)

Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 introduced a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration. It was later supplemented by Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training, which applies to qualifications not covered by the first.

The recognition machinery is based on the principle that anyone who is fully qualified to pursue a given occupation in one Member State must be permitted to do likewise elsewhere in the EU. Recognition is thus the rule, but there are a number of exceptions. For example: where the training undergone by the applicant in his/her home Member State differs substantially in content from that required by the host Member State, the latter is entitled to require the applicant to compensate for that difference by completing an adaptation period or taking an aptitude test. Except in the circumstances specifically provided for by the two Directives, the choice between the adaptation period or aptitude test must be left to the applicant.

In practice, such measures are imposed very infrequently by Member States. The statistics submitted to the Commission show that, other than for lawyers, patent agents and accountants, they have remained the exception. The limited recourse to such measures proves that the national authorities responsible for handling applications for recognition have not lost sight of one of the fundamental principles on which the general system is based, namely that of mutual trust. Full recognition of qualifications awarded in other Member States has in fact been the rule.

The Commission regards the full and reciprocal recognition called for by the Honourable Member as difficult to achieve, given that an occupation may differ considerably from one Member State to another (both in terms of definition, legal framework, level and entry requirements). In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, responsibility for regulating occupations continues to rest with the Member States. Consequently, certain occupations may exist in some Member States but not in others. Sometimes the same name may be used for occupations which in fact differ widely and for which differentlevels of training are required.

Faced with these difficulties, recognition machinery had to be devised which would ensure that differences in occupations between Member States did not pose an insurmountable barrier to freedom of movement. The general system has to take these differences into account in its rules and procedures and cannot, therefore, make recognition automatic. Full and reciprocal recognition might encourage young people to try to undertake training in whichever Member State the level of training for the occupation concerned was lowest and the qualifications most easily obtainable. This levelling-down would be contrary to the Treaty-based objective of improving the quality of education and training. Consequently, the recognition machinery must respect the distinctive features of the situation in Member States. Automatic recognition is possible only once a minimum degree of harmonization of training has been achieved (as between 1975 and 1985 in the case of doctors, nurses and veterinary surgeons).

As for the future, the Commission intends to continue along the path signposted at the outset by the general system for the recognition of qualifications. It will be vigilant in ensuring that all Member States fully incorporate Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC into national law, so that individuals are able to exercise fully the rights conferred on them by these two instruments.