WRITTEN QUESTION E-1649/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (14 May 1997)

Subject: Closure of the school of stomatology

In its answers to my previous questions Nos 3592/96 ((OJ C 186, 18.6.1997, p. 123. )), 3593/96 ((OJ C186, 18.6.1997, p. 123. )) and 1522/96 ((OJ C 356, 25.11.1996, p. 52. )) the Commission stated that Community law makes a distinction between stomatologists and dentists who undergo different forms of training including in specializations after obtaining their degree certificates and that there are both 'dentists' directives (78/686/EEC ((OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 1. )) and 78/687/EEC ((OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 10. ))) and 'doctors' directives (directive 93/16/EEC ((OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1. ))) under Community law for the respective legal disciplines.

Stomatology is a branch of medicine recognized in Community law (directive 93/16/EEC); in Italy Article 1 of law No 409/88 lays down that dentistry may be practised both by graduates in dentistry and graduates in medicine and surgery specialized in dentistry; by virtue of DM 30/10/93, which abolished the school of

stomatology, and the Court of Justice judgment (C 40/93 of 1.6.1995), which ruled that law 471/88 conflicted with directive 78/686, a situation has arisen in Italy whereby graduates in medicine and surgery are de facto prevented from practising as dentists/stomatologists.

1. Does the Commission not think that DM 30/10/93 (which amends the list of medical specializations) infringes Community law by closing the school of medical specialization in stomatology pursuant to the 'dentists' directives (78/686 and 78/687)?

2. Does it not also consider that reopening of the school of medical specialization in stomatology pursuant to 'doctors' directive 93/16 is the most correct way from the point of view of Community law of resolving the situation in Italy which has degenerated because of the simultaneous effects of DM 30/10/93 and judgment C 40/93 of 1.6.1995?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (12 June 1997)

1. As already stated in the answer to written question No E-1522/96, the Commission confirms that: (i) the medical specialism odontostomatology is governed only by the 'doctors' Directive 93/16/EEC, and not by the 'dentists' Directives 78/686/EEC and 78/687/EEC; (ii) Directive 93/16/EEC does not affect Member States' right to introduce or to abolish medical specialisms. Consequently, Italy has not infringed Community law - in this instance Directive 93/16/EEC - by abolishing the specialism odontostomatology.

With regard to the fact that Law No 409 of 24 July 1985 - which incorporates Directives 78/686/EEC and 78/687/EEC into Italian law - stipulates that dentistry may be practised not only by graduates in dentistry but also by graduates in medicine and surgery who have specialized in dentistry, the Commission considers that the latter form of training does not comply with Directive 78/687/EEC and has therefore instituted infringement proceedings against Italy. The current position is that a letter of formal notice has been sent.

2. Since Directive 93/16/EEC does not affect Member States' right to introduce or to abolish medical specialisms, it is not for the Commission to comment on whether or not the school of medical specialization in odontostomatology should be reopened so that graduates in medicine and surgery can follow that specialism. The fact remains that, even if the school were to be reopened, graduates in medicine and surgery who followed that specialism could on no account be regarded as dentists within the meaning of Directives 78/686/EEC and 78/687/EEC. They would continue to be doctors governed only by Directive 93/16/EEC. On no account would they be able to invoke Directive 78/686/EEC as a basis for setting up in another Member State.