WRITTEN QUESTION E-2564/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Recognition of the denturist-denturologist's diploma under Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC

Dental technicians who carry out every stage in the manufacture of dental prostheses from measuring to fitting and have received further clinical training for the purpose, are given various names in the different Member States. In Belgium they use the term dental prosthesist-denturist, in the Netherlands dental prosthetician, in Denmark and the UK clinical dental technician, and in France denturologist. The international professional federation sticks to denturist-denturologist.

In view of the increasing mobility in the European Union it is important to be able to ascertain whether vocational training courses in the various Member States leading to the profession of denturist-denturologist come under Directives 89/48/EEC(1) and 92/51/EEC(2), as they make provision for a system of recognition of higher education diplomas concluding vocational training courses of at least three years' duration. It is also important to know the relationship between those practising the denturist-denturologist profession and dentists. Some Member States give dentists a monopoly on all treatments carried out inside the mouth, thus including non-medical treatment such as technical and clinical treatment. In other Member States denturist-denturologists are permitted to fit prostheses without dentists' intervention. In between there are laws entitling denturist-denturologists to fit dental prostheses after patients have obtained a certificate from their doctor. The law is clearly not harmonised in this area.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What is the state of affairs on the recognition of the various training courses leading to the profession of denturist-denturologist in the 15 Member States?

2. What is the relationship between dentists and denturist-denturologists in the 15 Member States?

3. How does the Commission view the initiative enabling denturist-denturologists to exercise their profession with complete autonomy, possibly in cooperation with a dentist?

4. If the profession of denturist-denturologist can be accepted as complying with Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC, can the Commission allow existing or prospective national law to make it impossible for this category of professionals to exercise their profession in a legal manner? Can the Commission allow medically trained professionals (dentists) to enjoy a monopoly for carrying out non-medical treatments, in this case clinical and technical treatments? Does the Commission approve the awarding of a monopoly position for carrying out certain treatments (work inside the mouth) to one specific professional group as not being an infringement of Community law? If it is, what steps will the Commission be taking to deal with it? If it is not, what grounds does the Commission have for reaching this view?

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

(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 25.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2000)

First of all, and as already explained in the answer given by the Commission to Written Question E-3073/95 by Mr Wijsenbeek(1), since the profession of dental prosthesist-denturist or denturist-denturologist has not been subject to any Community harmonisation, the Member States alone remain responsible for granting official status to, and regulating, this profession. This applies not just to training and access to this profession, but also to the conditions for pursuing this activity and, in particular, the field which it covers, which may or may not include work inside the mouth.

In the absence of any Community Directive specifically relating to this profession, recognition among the Member States of qualifications giving access to this profession tends in effect to fall within the scope of 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 education and training of at least three years' duration(2) and Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training, to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC(3). The system laid down by these Directives applies when the profession in question is regulated in the host Member State, i.e. when access to, or the pursuit of, this profession is subject, directly or indirectly, by virtue of laws, regulations or administrative provisions, to the possession of a diploma. Once the qualifications have been recognised, the professional concerned will be subject to the same conditions for pursuing this activity (particularly in the same field of activity) as nationals of the host Member State. Under these circumstances, and given that these two Directives do not coordinate the content of training courses, it is not really possible to talk of specific professional training complying with the aforementioned Directives. In effect, either the profession concerned is regulated under the terms of the Directives (89/48/EEC or 92/51/EEC, by level of training) or it is not. If it is not regulated, then the pursuit of the profession or activity concerned is free (i.e. not subject to any conditions concerning qualifications) or reserved for other professionals (see below).

Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC do not oblige the Commission to carry out in-depth studies into all the professions to which these Directives may apply, which is why the Commission has no detailed information on this profession, and particularly on the relationship between dentists and denturists-denturologists. However, according to information which the Commission does have at its disposal, the profession of denturist-denturologist (whose field of activity includes work inside the mouth) does have official status in Denmark, Spain, the Netherlands and Finland.

Given the situation outlined above, it is not up to the Commission to comment on any initiative which would allow denturists-denturologists to carry out their profession with complete autonomy, possibly in collaboration with a dentist, nor is it qualified to take such an initiative.

In the absence of Community harmonisation measures, the field in question is the responsibility of the national authorities, which means that the Member States have every right to give the monopoly for a specific activity (such as work inside the mouth) to another professional, in this instance the dentist. Given that the activities being carried out are non-harmonised medical activities, it is not an infringement of Community law to reserve these for a particular profession cf. the Court of Justice judgment of 3 October 1990 in case C-61/89 (Bouchoucha)(4).

Finally, as for the possibility of applying Community competition rules to the awarding, by certain Member States, of a monopoly position to one specific professional group for work inside the mouth, this could only be envisaged in the rather unlikely event of the professional group which holds the monopoly being manifestly incapable of satisfying the demand for services, as happened in case C-41/90 (Höfner)(5). The Commission has no information to suggest that this is the case with regard to the service in question.

(1) OJ C 79, 18.3.1996.

(2) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.

(3) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(4) ECR 1990, p. I-3551.

(5) ECR 1991, p. I-1979.