WRITTEN QUESTION E-2024/02

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 July 2002)

Subject: Recognition of qualifications

Further to an enquiry from Trevor Stent, who lives at 18 rue de Pontadig, 29520 Châteauneuf-de-Faou, France, is the Commission aware that this person was not given equal treatment as a teacher in France, despite his attainment of a Postgraduate Certificate in Education from the University of Leicester (England), in contravention of Council Directive 89/48/EEC(1) of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training?

The French authorities would not recognise his Postgraduate Certificate of Education, therefore Mr Stent was employed with the status only of a supply teacher on a corresponding salary, and his contract had to be renewed each year. At last he has managed to get a permanent contract; after five years of full-time work he was given the right to an inspection which he passed and has now been given a permanent contract.

Further to this, Mr Stent was told by his employer (L'Académie de Rennes) that his experience in England would not be taken into account for salary purposes as it was not in a French lycée despite the fact that he has 25 years experience teaching the same subject (History in English) to the same age range of students.

Will the Commission investigate this case and determine whether Trevor Stent's rights under Directive 89/48/EEC have been breached?

What measures does the Commission intend to take to promote mobility and to encourage a lifting of the remaining obstacles to mutual recognition of qualifications and experience?

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2002)

Mr Stent's case concerns two different issues: recognition of qualifications and recognition of professional experience. The Commission is also in direct contact with Mr Stent.

As far as the recognition of Mr Stent's qualification and years of experience is concerned, Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional eductaion and training of at least three years' duration(1) is not breached. This Directive lays down a general system for the recognition of qualifications required for access to professions in the different Member States. Under the directive, the authorities of the host Member State (in this case France) must authorise a migrant to pursue a profession on its territory if the person in question holds the qualification required in order to pursue that profession in another Member State. It is for the person concerned to submit an individual application for recognition in the Member State where recognition is sought specifying clearly the profession concerned. In the event of significant differences existing between the professions or the training leading to the right to practise the professions in question, the host Member State can require the migrant to undergo an adaptation period or an aptitude test (the migrant is free to choose). When applying the Directive, the host Member State is also under the obligation to take into account the migrant's professional experience.

On the basis of the information provided, Mr Stent obtained recognition in France in order to be able to practise his profession as a teacher. Hence, it follows that the French authorities did not refuse the recognition of his qualifications.

With regard the last issue the Commission would like to draw attention to its recently adopted proposal for a new Directive on professional recognition(2). This proposal comprehensively revises all of the directives founded on recognition of title so as to maintain the principle conditions and guarantees, while simplifying the structure and making improvements to the working of the system. The proposal also provides for simpler conditions for the cross-frontier provision of services compared with those applicable to the freedom of establishment in order further to contribute to the flexibility of labour and services markets.

As far as the recognition of professional experience is concerned, the French authorities seem to have violated Community law as they totally refused to take into account the professional experience acquired by Mr Stent in the British teaching sector for the purposes of determining his salary. According to the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice(3) the Commission considers that Article 39 of the EC Treaty and Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community(4) must be interpreted as requiring Community workers' previous periods of comparable employment in another Member State to be taken into account by the French authorities for the purposes of determining the salary in the same way as applies to experience acquired in France. Therefore the French authorities have to compare Mr Stent's professional experience with periods of employment in France which would be taken into account for determining the salary; in as far as they are comparable they have to take them equally into account.

The Commission has an on-going infringement procedure against France on this issue and is currently evaluating the French draft legislation aimed at adapting French rules to Community law.

The Commission has made the following general efforts in order to lift obstacles to the recognition of professional experience and seniority. As this problem occurs in many Member States the Commission has on-going infringement procedures against a number of Member States. The Commission is also consulting the Member States on this issue within the framework of a working group of the Directors-General for Public Administration (intergovernmental co-operation). The Commission also advises many citizens concerning these questions.

In order to promote mobility in general the Commission has recently adopted its Action Plan for Skills and Mobilty(5), which follows previous reports and texts related to free movement(6).

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.

(2) COM(2002) 119 final.

(3) Case C-15/96 (Schöning) ECR [1998] I-00047, Case C-187/96 (Commission v. Greece) ECR [1998] I-01095 and Case C-195/98 (Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund) ECR [2000] I-10497.

(4) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.

(5) COM(2002) 72 final du 13.2.2002.

(6) Report of the High Level Panel on the free movement of persons (the Veil Report) of 1997, the Commission's Action Plan for Free Movement of Workers (COM(1997) 586), Communication on New European Labour Markets (COM(2001) 116).