WRITTEN QUESTION E-2268/99

by Hans Kronberger (NI) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Recognition of a masseur's qualification in the EU

In a specific case the authorities in Lower Bavaria (Germany) rejected an Austrian national's application for the recognition of his qualification on the following grounds:

Recognition on the basis of Directive 92/51/EEC(1) and thus pursuant to section 2(4) of the Law on Masseurs and Physiotherapists is ruled out because these occupations do not conform to the German career profile of the masseur and medical swimming pool attendant, even though the occupational titles are identical in some respects.

When the applicant inquired at the Federal Ministry in Bonn, however, he was told the opposite, that it was indeed possible for his training to be recognised pursuant to section 16 within the framework of the EU directives.

The Commission is requested to answer the following questions:

1. Is it lawful for the recognition of an Austrian national's qualification as masseur to be refused in Germany?

2. What legal basis should actually be applied?

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

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2000)

1. Yes, insofar as the professions are different as explained below.

2. In principle, the general system defined by 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(1) 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 is intended to cover the recognition of higher-education diplomas and professional qualifications within the Community, to the exclusion only of those exceptions provided for by the Directives.

However, a number of conditions must be met; in particular, the persons concerned must be fully qualified and must apply for recognition of their diplomas or qualifications in the Member State in which they intend to exercise the profession for which they have been qualified in another Member State. If the conditions of the Directives are not satisfied, a Member State can refuse to apply them. A decision to refuse recognition must, of course, be reasoned, so that the grounds for exclusion from the Directives are clear.

Individual decisions are based on a comparison of the migrant's qualifications and the training required for the relevant profession in the host Member State (national rules apply in this case). The field of activity of the professions in the two Member States is also taken into account. The national authorities are responsible for assessing individual cases in accordance with the procedure defined in the Directives, which provide for a reasoned decision and notification within four months of the submission of the completed application.

The fact that two professions in different Member States have a similar title is only an indication that the professions are the same. Rather, it is the content, i.e. the field of activity, of the profession concerned which determines the identity of two professions in two different Member States, and not the profession's denomination. If the differences are too great, the two professions may be considered different in the Member States concerned, in which case the general system need not apply. In addition to this exceptional situation, when there are substantial differences between the curricula of the two Member States, the migrant may be asked to take suitable measures to compensate for those differences.

In the case in point, the applicant should consider exercising his rights under his host country's national law, and in particular the right of appeal. The Directive mentioned above gives migrants the opportunity to appeal before the courts under national law. In addition, according to information from the German authorities, migrants can also request the Ministry of Health (Gesundheitsministerium) of the Land where the decision has been made to reexamine the decision.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.