EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/486

(2004/C 84 E/0563)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2332/03

by Franz Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Non-compliance by Italy with Article 43 TEC

Article 43 (ex Article 52) of the Treaty establishing the European Community prohibits any restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State. The European Court of Justice ruling in the Kraus case of 31 March 1993 specified that these freedoms are also enjoyed by citizens of a Member State who, after obtaining a professional qualification recognised by Community law, are in an analogous situation vis-à-vis their Member State of origin to all other persons who enjoy the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty.

As regards the medical and allied and pharmaceutical professions, the abolition of restrictions is facilitated, pursuant to Article 47 TEC, by coordination of the conditions for the exercise of these professions in the various Member States and through directives on the mutual recognition of qualifications and the harmonisation of national requirements for the taking-up and pursuit of employment.

In its ruling on the Hocsman case, the Court of Justice specified that Article 43 TEC requires the national authorities to carry out a comparison, on a case-by-case basis, of the diplomas obtained by the persons concerned, including diplomas awarded by third countries. Under Directive 78/686/EEC (1), each Member State must recognise the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in dentistry awarded to nationals of Member States by the other Member States in accordance with Directive 78/687/EEC (2), by giving such qualifications, as far as the right to take up and pursue the activities of a dental practitioner is concerned, the same effect in its territory as those which that Member State itself awards. On 11 and 13 March 2003, three complaints against Italy for violation of Article 43 TEC were submitted to the European Commission by Italian nationals with diplomas in dentistry issued either by a Member State or by a third country, Croatia, which had already been recognised in another Member State but which Italy did not recognise.

In a letter of 21 November 2001, the European Commission drew the Italian authorities' attention to the need to respect the principles and obligations enshrined in European case law. In the light of the above, would the Commission not consider it opportune to take action, if necessary in the form of a letter of formal notice, to ensure that the Italian authorities put a stop to these reported violations of Community law?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2003)

The question of Italy's recognition of qualifications in dentistry obtained in third countries by Community nationals which have already been recognised in another Member State of the European Union, is one with which the Commission is well acquainted, mainly on account of petitions 34, 105 and 303/2000 (3).

The Commission would like to make it clear that, in accordance with the ECJ case-law in Case C-238/98 Hocsman (4), the Italian authorities took a decision in March 2002 on the application for professional recognition by the parties concerned, after having taken their training and professional experience into account. The fact that the Italian authorities made this recognition conditional upon an aptitude test in a certain number of subjects is not in itself contrary to Community law, as this possibility follows from the aforementioned case-law.

The complaints received by the Commission in March 2003 specifically contest the decisions taken. These complaints are currently being examined by the Commission, which will pay particular attention to the Court's latest ruling on the recognition of third-country diplomas, delivered on 19 June 2003 in Case C-110/01 Malika Tennah-Durez (5).

The Commission is well aware that it is a matter of urgency for the complainants that the problems encountered be solved. They will be informed of the outcome of this investigation as soon as it is available.

(1) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 10.

(3) These petitions were closed on 21 March 2003.

(4) ECR p. I-6623.

(5) Not yet published in the ECR.