Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and supplementing Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor (presented by the Commission)'
Date: 1998-05-27
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: health care profession, professional qualifications, recognition of diplomas, right of establishment, town-planning profession

27.7.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235/53

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a European Parliament
and Council Directive amending Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system
for the recognition of professional qualifications and supplementing Directives 77/452/EEC,
77/453/EEC,
80/154/EEC,
80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the pro-
fessions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife,
architect, pharmacist and doctor (presented by the Commission)’ (1)

78/1027/EEC,

78/1026/EEC,

78/686/EEC,

78/687/EEC,

(98/C 235/11)

On 16 December 1997 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
proposal.

The Section for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 May 1998. The
rapporteur was Mrs Sigmund.

At its 355th plenary session (meeting of 27 May 1998) the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion with 115 votes in favour and two abstentions.

1.

Introduction

decisions for 1998, with which the proposals for rational-
ization of the advisory committees will be implemented.

With the SLIM initiative (Simpler Legislation for the
Internal Market) the Commission has initiated a process
under which small working parties of experts draw up
proposals for measures to simplify internal market law
in the broadest sense. Under the 1996 pilot project four
working parties were set up, one of which was concerned
with the law on mutual recognition of qualifications.
This working party submitted its report in October
1996. The report’s recommendations can be summarized
as follows:

— The sectoral directives should be retained.

— The advisory committees should in principle be
retained, but the appointment procedure should
be simplified, they should scaled down and their
working methods should be improved.

— The legal and administrative formalities associated
with recognition in some Member States should be
re-examined and, where necessary, simplified or
clarified.

— The procedure for updating the lists of qualifications
eligible for automatic recognition should be simpli-
fied.

— The provisions of the sectoral directives concerning
general and vocational training should be more skill
and results-orientated, rather than relying strictly on
training content.

With the current proposal for a directive the Commission
is implementing some of the proposals of the SLIM
group of experts. In the explanatory memorandum to
formal
the proposal

the Commission announces

(1) OJ C 28, 26.1.1998, p. 1.

2. General comments

2.1.
The Committee congratulates the Commission
on the proposal for a directive, which, the Committee
feels, contributes to making the work of the Union more
transparent and efficient, without however endangering
citizens’ interests which need to be protected.

The Committee regards this Commission proposal as
an important contribution to the confidence pact for
employment.

In the explanatory memorandum to the current
2.2.
proposal the Commission looks in detail at the reform of
the advisory committees on the health-care professions.

The following points are raised:

— Simplification of the appointment procedure;

— Reduction of the number of members;

— Extension of the term of office;

— Extension of remit.

The operative part of

2.3.
summarized as follows:

the directive can be

— The concept of ‘regulated education and training’
contained in the second recognition directive
(92/51/EEC) is incorporated into the first recognition
directive (84/48/EEC) (Article 1).

— The coordinating group is empowered to issue

opinions (Article 2).

C 235/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.7.98

— The simplified procedure for the updating of the list
of qualifications eligible for automatic recognition
contained in the ‘doctor’s’ directive is extended to
all sectoral directives; the only exception is the
‘architects’ directive, for which a separate, proven
procedure is provided (Article 3).

— The situation of migrants, who are nationals of a
Member State but who obtained their qualifications
outside the European Union,
is to be clarified
(Article 5).

— A right of appeal against decisions of the Member
States on applications for recognition is introduced
(Article 6).

3. Specific comments

The document submitted for the Committee’s opinion
contains information of varying legal status. For exam-
ple, the text relating to the discussion of reform of the
advisory committees is purely for information, as the
relevant decisions have not yet been adopted. On the
other hand, the draft directive contains specific proposals
for a binding text.

3.1. Reform of the advisory committees

Before discussing the Commission’s specific proposals,
it seems worthwhile to give an account of the member-
ship and working methods of the committees operating
within the ambit of the sectoral directives.

The members of the advisory committees are experts
with an advisory remit. At the time they were established,
the primary objective of these committees was to
promote and ensure a comprehensive exchange of
information on the structure and content of training
methods. This need for information has now to a great
extent been met. The relevant SLIM team has therefore
now recommended that
in future a more results-
orientated and vocation-specific approach be adopted.

The committees of senior officials, which differ in their
working methods from the advisory committees, are not
affected by the SLIM team’s reform proposals. In
contrast to the advisory committees, the committees of
senior officials have decision-making powers and work
in the framework of the committee procedure.

3.1.1. S i m p l i f i c a t i o n o f t h e a p p o i n t m e n t

p r o c e d u r e

At present each Member State forwards its list of experts
to the Council, which makes the formal appointment
decision. This has proved to be an extremely time-
consuming procedure, which in extreme cases has been
completed only a short time before the mandate of the
relevant committee was due to expire, as the Council
waits for all the lists to be submitted before taking a

decision. Thus, in some cases the committee’s work has
been compromised from the outset for purely formal
reasons.

The Committee therefore wholeheartedly supports the
Commission’s proposal that the procedure be simplified
by allowing the Member States to forward the names of
their representatives directly to the Commission.

3.1.2. R e d u c i n g t h e n u m b e r o f m e m b e r s

At present each Member State provides three full
members (one representative each from the profession,
the educational sector and the responsible authority)
and three alternate members, so that each committee
has ninety members.

The Committee shares the view of the SLIM experts
and the Commission that the committees should be
scaled down in the interests of greater efficiency. Another
important consideration is costs. When the EU is again
enlarged each committee will gain another six members
per new Member State!

The Commission’s proposal to restrict membership of
the committees to one full member and one alternate
(one from the profession and one from the education
sector) per Member State seems balanced and appropri-
ate to the tasks of the committees.

In view of the changed tasks of the advisory committees,
already referred to above, and the Commission’s reaction
to this, in extending their mandate and making this
more practically orientated, it would be logical for
the Member States to appoint representatives of the
profession in question as full members of the advisory
committees. It would not appear appropriate, nor
consistent with the Commission’s wish for a more
practical orientation, to leave it to the Member States
to decide whether full members of the committees should
be drawn from the profession itself or from training
institutions.

It should be clearly understood that the Commission, in
adopting the SLIM proposals, has radically altered the
mandate of the advisory committees (hitherto focused
on the co-ordination of syllabuses) and added new
responsibilities which in the light of current objectives
could best be tackled by representatives of the profession.

The Committee calls on the Commission to make its
views clear on this issue and to ask the Member States
to appoint mainly practitioners as full members.

As the experts of the responsible authorities are already
represented on the relevant committees of senior
officials, which are in any case in contact with the
advisory committees, reducing the number of members

27.7.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235/55

of the advisory committees is also consistent with the
administrative adjustments desired by a number of
Member States.

The Commission will publish the names adopted by the
Member States for the training qualifications concerned
in the Official Journal.

The Committee feels however that organizational
measures are needed to ensure close and continuous
cooperation between the two types of committee. Thus
for example, at least one joint meeting could be held per
year.

3.1.3.
The extension of the life of the committees
from three years to six is, in the Committee’s view, a
necessary consequence of the restructuring of the advi-
sory committees, as in this way the initial difficulties
arising from renewal of the committee’s membership
can be mitigated.

3.1.4.
The extension of the remit of the advisory
committees to cover all opinions requested by the
Commission in relation to freedom of establishment in
the various vocations covered by the sectoral directives
is a decisive measure. All measures adopted in the
framework of SLIM or as a consequence of this must
ultimately be regarded as part of the Commission’s
wide-ranging internal market plan.

3.2. Regulated education and training (Article 1)

The adoption of the concept of ‘regulated education
and training’ into the first recognition directive is to be
welcomed as a contribution to the objective of uniform
terminology, as the term is already used in the more
recent second directive.

The inclusion of the term in Directive 89/48/EEC is also
consistent with the wish for a more results- (and
vocation-) orientated approach in the framework of the
general rules on recognition. This will facilitate freedom
of movement for many young citizens wishing to
migrate.

3.3. Opinions of the coordinators (Articles 1 and 2)

The Committee welcomes the pragmatic approach spelt
out by the Commission. It would be worthwhile making
use of the experience of organizations responsible for
the practical application of the directive and in this way
accelerating uniform application and interpretation.

The Committee supports the trend towards making the
coordinating group into a sort of consultative body for
the Commission.

As this procedure has already proved itself in the
field of general medicine, the Committee considers it
appropriate and correct to extend it to the other sectoral
directives in the health care field.

3.5. Treatment of qualifications obtained by nationals

of the Member States outside the EU (Article 5)

The Commission rightly states in the Explanatory
Memorandum to Article 5 that each Member State
remains free to recognize a qualification obtained outside
the EU and that its decision is not binding on the other
Member States.

This is consistent with the case law of the European
Court of Justice, which states explicitly that a Member
State is not bound by the recognition of a third country
qualification by another Member State, but that it must
take account of any experience gained within the
Community subsequent to recognition (1). The Court
in its judgment in the
of Justice was clearer still
Tawil-Albertini case (2), in which it stated that ‘recog-
nition by a Member State of qualifications awarded by
non-Member States, even if they have been recognized
as equivalent in one or more Member States, does not
bind the other Member States’.

The Committee recommends that
the wording of
Article 5 be clarified, as it is at present not clear that the
recognition of a non-Community qualification by a
Member State is not automatically binding on the other
Member States.

The phrase ‘take account’ used in Article 5 does leave
some room for interpretation, as the law generally
considers that ‘taking account’ is only part of a decision-
making process.

However, in the interests of greater clarity, the Com-
mittee recommends that the first sentence of Article 5
be reworded as follows:

‘Member States shall, as part of the process of
assessing equivalence, take account of ...’.

3.6. Right of appeal (Article 6)

The Committee wholeheartedly welcomes the introduc-
tion of a right of appeal against decisions of the Member

3.4. Updating of lists of qualifications (Articles 3 and 4)

Under the proposal the Member States are required
to notify the Commission of all national laws and
regulations adopted as regards the award of diplomas,
certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications.

(1) Judgment of the Court of 9 February 1994. Salomone
Haim v. Kassenzahnärztliche Vereiningung Nordrhein.
Case C-319/92.

(2) Judgment of the Court of 9 February 1994. Abdullah
Tawil-Albertini v. Ministre des Affaires sociales. Case
C-154/93, quotation from Haim case, point 21.

C 235/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.7.98

States, and also in the event of failure to reach a decision.
This basic democratic right of citizens is reflected in the
general principles of Community law.

3.7. Articles 7 to 21

The Committee has deliberately not commented on the
specific changes to the sectoral directives. It considers
that its priority should be to comment, in as concerted
a form as possible, on the changes of principle proposed
by the Commission, and for this reason it feels that it

should refrain from discussion of essentially uncontro-
versial adjustments.

4. Final comments

The Committee in principle endorses the Commission
proposal as it considers this to be an important instru-
ment for simplification of the law and greater trans-
parency.

The proposed measures for simplification of work
will, apart from making for an improved cost/benefit
relationship, accelerate work processes and thus
strengthen citizens’ confidence in Europe.

Brussels, 27 May 1998.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission
to the Council and the European Parliament “The Future for the Market in Fisheries Products
in the European Union: Responsibility, Partnership and Competitiveness”’

(98/C 235/12)

On 22 December 1997 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee,
under Articles 43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the
above-mentioned communication.

The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s
work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 12 May 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Chagas.

At its 355th plenary session (meeting of 27 May 1998), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 103 votes with six abstentions.

1.

Introduction

The aim of the communication from the Com-
1.1.
mission is to lay the foundations for a debate on the
amendments to be made to the common organization
of the market (COM), in order to improve market
functioning and bring this aspect of the Common
Fisheries Policy (CFP) into line with changes on the
fisheries products markets.

The Commission is to submit proposals for

1.2.
improving the operation of the COM at a later stage.

2. General comments

will submit the document to a broad institutional debate
and wide-ranging consultation with the principal actors
in the fisheries sector (vessel owners, workers, industry,
consumers).

2.2.
The Committee recalls that the COM was set up
under Regulation (EEC) No 2142/70 (1), which outlined
the general principles governing this aspect of the
Common Fisheries Policy, and which has been adjusted
over the years when necessary. The most recent adjust-
ment was made by the basic regulation which came into
force on 1 January 1993 (2).

The Committee welcomes the Commission’s
2.1.
communication, and in particular its statement that it

(1) OJ L 236, 27.10.1970, p. 5.
(2) OJ L 388, 31.12.1992, p. 1.