WRITTEN QUESTION E-3048/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Dentistry and Clinical Dental Technicians (CDTs).
Date: 2000-09-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU competence, United Kingdom, competence of the Member States, organisation of professions, paramedical profession

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/237

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it
direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.

(2001/C 103 E/278)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3040/00

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Discrimination against PVC products in Denmark

(28 September 2000)

New legislation has been introduced in Denmark to prohibit and impede the trade in PVC products, inter
alia by imposing higher tax duties and introducing a new criminal offence. The effect of this legislative
measure is to hinder the trade in PVC products in Denmark or to ban their sale completely.

1.

2.

Does the Commission regard this Danish legislation as compatible with EU law?

If not, does the Commission propose to initiate proceedings for breach of Treaty obligations?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2000)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member
and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.

(2001/C 103 E/279)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3048/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(28 September 2000)

Subject: Dentistry and Clinical Dental Technicians (CDTs)

In 1991, a UK Government report identified the need for Clinical Dental Technicians (CDTs) within the
dental profession and recommended they be acknowledged as a profession.

The General Dental Council (GDC) set up a group to consider this issue and agreed with the government
report. Since then, however, the GDC has referred its recommendations back to committee for further
work, and they have been debated on several occasions. In a final meeting, the GDC decided that CDTs
could NOT undertake the business of dentistry and be paid directly for their services by patients.

The Department of Health has, however, stated that the business of dentistry is not within the GDC remit
as it is a public body.

Does this matter fall within the EU(cid:146)s powers and responsibilities?

If so, what plans does the Commission have to ensure the modernisation of the dental profession so that it
allows dental patients access to a range of new personnel and professionals who are qualified in the sphere
of dentistry, including Clinical Dental Technicians in the UK?

C 103 E/238

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2000)

The profession of clinical dental technician has not been harmonised at Community level, which means
that the Member States alone are competent to grant practitioner status and to regulate the profession
(training requirements, conditions for taking up and pursuing the profession).

to certain limits imposed by
The Member States(cid:146) powers and responsibilities are, however, subject
Community harmonisation regarding the dental profession. Council Directive 78/687/EEC of 25 July
1978 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in
respect of the activities of dental practitioners (1), which coordinated dental training, lays down the training
requirements which the Member States must impose for access to the profession of dental practitioner.
That Directive was a prerequisite for the automatic mutual recognition of dental qualifications provided for
by Council Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas,
certificates and other evidence of the formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry, including measures
to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (1), and lays
down minimum requirements which ensure that the care provided by the practitioners in question is of a
high quality.

It follows from this harmonisation that the Member States are no longer competent to create or continue
to allow a profession that is different and separate from that of dentist, but whose field of activity is very
similar or identical. Although the Member States are free to establish and regulate professions such as
dental technician or dental hygienist as they see fit, they cannot authorise such professionals (who would
possess neither the level of training nor the formal qualification required by the (cid:145)dentist(cid:146) Directives) to
perform the same activities as dentists. To do so would be contrary to the spirit and structure of the
Directives and would deprive them of their effectiveness.

Finally, where practitioner status is granted, Council Directives 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(cid:146) duration (2) and 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) on a general system for the recognition of diplomas apply to mutual recognition by Member States
of the qualifications in question.

(1) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978.
(2) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.
(3) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(2001/C 103 E/280)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3078/00

by Luckas Vander Taelen (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 September 2000)

Subject: Selection panel for the international architectural competition relating to the European Quarter:

partiality, qualifications and presence of Belgian panel members

Further to complaint 98/5025SG-Belgium, and as indicated in its reply to Question P-1747/00 (1), the
Commission has issued formal notice to the Belgian authorities regarding the lack of impartiality of
the panel,
Mr H. Montois, an architect and member of
Mr J. Vandervoorde, an architect from the CERAU office, was not impartial either, because from 3 October
1990 he was a partner and shareholder in the Espace LØopold architectural office, which took the form of
a limited company, on the same basis as Mr A. Jacqmain, an architect from the Genval architectural office
(placed second in the competition), in connection with the construction of the D4, D5 and SNCB buildings
in rue de TrŁves, Brussels.

the selection panel. The chairman of