WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2699/98 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Dispute between Italy and the Commission regarding stomatological and orthodontic care
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: EU law - national law, European Commission, Italy, appeal to the Court (EU), dental medicine, dentist, medical specialisation, professional society, recognition of diplomas, right of establishment

C 135/98

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.5.1999

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 1998)

Five Member States (Belgium, Greece, France, Italy, Austria and Portugal) have still not fully completed
the transposition process of Council Directive 94/56/EC of 21 November 1994 establishing the
fundamental principles governing the investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents (1).

The Commission has already sent reasoned opinions to these Member States and will decide before the
end of the year whether Court referrals are necessary.

(1) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994.

(1999/C 135/115)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2698/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Dispute between Italy and the Commission regarding stomatological and orthodontic care

With regard to the serious problems caused in Italy by the distinction between the register of dentists and
the register of surgeons, in which doctors specialised in dentistry and in odontostomatology are registered,
can the Commission say:

1. whether in any Member States other than Italy, doctors practising dentistry belong to the same

professional body;

2. whether in France and Luxembourg there are regulations governing ‘activities involving the
prevention, diagnosis and treatment of ...(...)... the teeth, mouth, jaws ...’ carried out by dentists
who are not doctors or by doctors (whether or not specialising in stomatology) practising either in the
public sector or privately, and also whether exceeding any such restrictions on the right to practise
constitutes a criminal offence or merely an aggravating factor in cases of malpractice?

(1999/C 135/116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2699/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Dispute between Italy and the Commission regarding stomatological and orthodontic care

The so-called ‘doctor directives’, Directives 75/362/EEC (1) and 75/363/EEC (2) regulate, on the basis of
analogous criteria (mutual recognition and right of establishment) the right to practise, among other
things, odontostomatology (activities simply involving the treatment of mouth and teeth problems carried
out without restrictions by doctors).

It should be noted that the ‘doctor directives’ do not specify the fields of activity of doctors, only the
criteria for their training. Indeed, no Member State has ever considered it possible to place an anatomical
limit on the scope of the actions of a doctor called upon to treat a patient. Only in Italy has it been deemed
that because the treatment of one part of the body (the teeth, mouth, etc.) has been entrusted to a health-
care professional who is not a doctor this should automatically mean that this part of the body must by law
no longer come within a doctor’s sphere of activity.

Can the Commission say whether any Community legislation or precedents exist that may in any way have
imposed some kind of regulatory framework on Member States forcing them explicitly to ban doctors
from practising in the areas of the treatment of the mouth and the teeth?

(1) OJ L 167, 30.6.1975, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 167, 30.6.1975, p. 14.