Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional qualifications" (COM(2002) 119 final — 2002/0061 (COD))
Date: 2002-09-18
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: education policy, employment policy, exchange of information, professional qualifications, provision of services, recognition of diplomas

14.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/67

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional qualifications’

(COM(2002) 119 final — 2002/0061 (COD))

(2003/C 61/14)

On 22 March 2002, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 September 2002. The rapporteur was
Mr Ehnmark.

At its 393rd Plenary Session of 18 and 19 September (meeting of 18 September), the Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 135 votes, with no votes against and no abstentions.

1. Summary of the opinion

The Lisbon European Council

1.1.
in 2000 set a very
ambitious goal for the development of the Union, with vast
implications not only economically but also socially and
environmentally. The Lisbon strategy emphasised that the
overall objective for the advancement of the Union should be
to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-
based society in the world by the year 2010. Later European
Summits have confirmed this objective.

1.2.
One of the most important fields of action in order to
reach the Lisbon objective is education and training, and in
general terms development of the human resources. Another
essential field of action is development of the labour markets
and their functioning. In the interface between these two fields
are the efforts to promote quality education and training, as
well as to safeguard the mutual recognition of professional
qualifications across the borders. Only in this way can the
labour market and the education systems make their full
contribution to meeting the Lisbon objective.

It

1.3.
The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)
welcomes the new proposal from the European Commission
for consolidating and simplifying the legal framework for
is a
recognition of professional qualifications.
mutual
timely proposal, and far-reaching. Although it focuses on the
regulated professions, it will de facto encompass both regulated
and non-regulated professions, and professions based on both
shorter and longer periods of education particularly because a
lot of professions are regulated in some EU countries and not
regulated in other EU countries. In this respect, mobility within
the non-regulated area of professions could also be positively
affected, even if the draft directive doesn’t officially deal with
it. The proposed new directive represents a very considerable
simplification of present legal structures. The EESC gives its
support to these intentions.

1.4.
A system for recognition of professional qualifications
must be based on active support and involvement from the
relevant professional associations and the social partners. The
present system guarantees that, to some extent. The proposed
new system does not guarantee that. The EESC proposes
amendments to the draft directive in order to safeguard this
involvement.

1.5. Mutual recognition of professional qualifications must
be based on presumptions of comparable high quality in the
qualifications. It is essential that the consumers and citizens at
large can have confidence in the quality of the services offered
by migrant as well as national professionals. The EESC finds
that the draft directive does not sufficiently cover the problems
inherent in establishing a good consumer service. This is not
only a question for the public authorities but also for the
professional associations and the social partners. The Member
States must ensure that the main concern should be the
protection of consumers.

The new system for recognition of professional qualifi-
1.6.
cations must be both simple and flexible, and ready to adapt
to changes in the labour market or in the education systems.
The proposed directive does not clarify to which extent the
provisions in the directive can be subject to revisions as a
result of changes in education policies. The EESC further
recommends that the European Commission give attention to
the need for policy coherence in the interface between
education policy, labour market policy and internal market
policy.

The new system opens the door for European pro-
1.7.
fessional associations to propose Europe-wide common plat-
forms for recognition of professional qualifications. The EESC
finds it very positive that this opportunity is included in the
draft directive. However, the EESC is of the opinion that
the criteria for submitting such proposals should be better
elaborated in the directive. The EESC proposes a set of such
criteria.

C 61/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.3.2003

1.8.
The proposed new directive poses a considerable
number of information and communication challenges, both
for national authorities and for professional associations. The
EESC finds it absolutely necessary that a high quality service to
citizens be established with regard to recognition of service
providers.

1.9.
The EESC represents organized civil society, including
the social partners, and thereby also professionals and con-
sumers. The EESC intends to be closely involved in the follow-
up of the directive, as part of EESC’s work concerning the
internal market and the developments of
the education
systems.

2. The need for enhanced mobility in the labour mar-
kets: recognition of diplomas in the context of the
Lisbon strategy

2.1.
Geographic mobility between EU Member States
remains relatively low, which is illustrated by the fact that
225 000 people — or 0,1 % of the total EU population —
changed official residence between two countries in 2000.
However, the pattern of mobility has changed. When the
Community regime for professional recognition was conceived
40 years ago geographic mobility mainly took place among
unskilled workers. Today skilled employees are the most
movable group on the internal labour market.

2.2. Mobility, both geographic and occupational, is regard-
ed as one of the key measures to increase employment and
enhance the overall competitiveness of the EU. Removing
obstacles to mobility has become a key policy issue. With the
changing trends in labour-market mobility, it has become
important to make it easier to move within the Union —
instead of moving out of the Union.

The Lisbon strategy identified the lack of labour-
2.3.
market mobility as an essential obstacle to achieving economic
and industrial growth. The strategy also emphasised the need
for preserved high quality in the services offered. The quality
aspect is likewise one of the key issues in the present debate
on the development of the educational systems.

Both in higher education and in vocational education
2.4.
and training efforts are presently being made to achieve a
degree of convergence as to curricula and standards. Although
it is too early to talk of harmonisation, it is obvious that the
education systems have identified a need for a degree of
convergent planning. Convergence in academic and vocational
qualifications will no doubt further contribute to additional
skills mobility.

2.5.
The legal framework for recognition of professional
qualifications is a tool for achieving an open and flexible
internal market. The same professions are often organized in
very different ways in different Member States. The main
approach must be to maintain the general rule of the right of
establishment based on national provisions. Provision for
partial access to the profession or the cross-frontier provision
of services should only provide a limited or exceptional
liberalisation. The directive has not managed to express clearly
this aspect. The EESC recommends that a statement to that
effect is included in the directive.

2.6.
It is relevant to point out, in this context, that it will
become even more important to look out for ‘degree mills’
and other bogus providers of documents of qualifications, and
to take necessary measures.

3. General comments

The EESC welcomes the proposal for a new directive
3.1.
for recognition of professional qualifications. The purpose is
to create a more coordinated, transparent and flexible regime
of mutual recognition for regulated professions based on
the existing General System and the sectoral Directives on
recognition. The Committee notices that the proposal consti-
tutes the first comprehensive modernisation of the Community
regime for professional recognition since it was conceived
forty years ago.

The wholesale consolidation of the systems for recog-
3.2.
nition of qualifications for regulated professions should make
it easier to manage and clearer, quicker and more friendly for
the users in order to facilitate the free movement of qualified
people between the Member States. This is all the more
important in view of an enlarged European Union.

In creating a coherent set of principles for mutual
3.3.
recognition, the Commission has tried to side-step possible
areas of conflict with regard to national systems. This is
particularly the case in countries where there exist public
organisations of professional boards, with built-in responsi-
bilities for pension funds as well as other social security funds.
The EESC recommends that the draft directive, in its preamble,
clearly states that the provisions in the directive do not imply
any changes in the basic structures of professional associations
in the Member States. The purpose of the directive is exclus-
ively to promote and simplify mobility, not
to change
structures in the Member States.

14.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/69

3.4.
Information about recognition of diplomas and qualifi-
cations concerning both regulated professions and any initiat-
ives on non-regulated professions must be enhanced, building
on existing information and communications networks, as
well as on current work on improving transparency of
qualifications, to ensure that citizens can rely on a more
comprehensive service providing information and advice spec-
ific to their individual interests and rights. The EESC would
have welcomed an elaborated analysis of how to establish a
good information service to citizens.

3.5.
The directive would replace fifteen existing Directives
in the field of recognition of professional qualifications, that is
twelve directives covering the seven professions of doctor (1),
general care nurse (2), dental practitioner (3), veterinary sur-
geon (4), midwife (5), pharmacist (6) and architect (7) adopted
mainly over a twenty-year period in the 1970s and 1980s,
plus the three General System directives (8), all of which were
updated by the SLIM Directive in 1999 and 2001. It would
thus cover the whole range of professions from higher
education to crafts and trade professions.

3.6.
The EESC supports the approach taken by the Com-
mission. It is essential that new efforts are made to simplify
the regulatory framework for recognition of qualifications.
Particularly in view of the enlargement of the EU, it is vital to
set in place a new regime that takes into account the need for
simplification as well as for continued high quality in the
services offered.

3.7.
In the proposal, specific obligations are placed on
service providers to provide specified information to their
clients and to the contact points in the Member States. More
general obligations are placed on the Member States as to
exchange of information. The EESC would have welcomed
more specific proposals as to the obligations of Member States
to integrate existing national systems.

( 1) OJ L 165 of 7.7.1993, p. 1, and last amended by the SLIM

Directive.

( 2) OJ L 176 of 15.7.1977, p. 1 and p. 8, and last amended by the

SLIM Directive.

( 3) OJ L 233 of 24.8.1978, p. 1 and p. 10, and last amended by the

SLIM Directive.

( 4) OJ L 362 of 23.12.1978, p. 1 and p. 7, and last amended by the

SLIM Directive.

( 5) OJ L 33 of 11.2.1980, p. 1 and p. 8, and last amended by the

SLIM Directive.

( 6) OJ L 253 of 24.9.1985, p. 34 and p. 37, and last amended by the

SLIM Directive.

( 7) OJ L 223 of 21.8.1985, p. 15, and last amended by the SLIM

Directive.

( 8) OJ L 19 of 24.1.1989, p. 16, and last amended by the SLIM
Directive. OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 25, and last amended by the
SLIM Directive. OJ L 201 of 31.7.1999, p. 77.

4. Specific comments

The EESC stresses that it should be made clear in the title of
the Directive that it is addressed only to regulated professions.

4.1. Title I — General provisions

4.1.1. T h e s c o p e o f t h e p r o p o s e d d i r e c t i v e

4.1.1.1.
The EESC has noted that the wording does not
cover third-country nationals who have obtained their edu-
cation in a EU Member State. It is the opinion of the EESC that
this category of third-country nationals with residence permits
should have the same right to recognition of qualifications as
EU citizens (9).

4.1.1.2. With regard to EU Member State nationals, the
Committee would recommend that, in the interests of main-
taining high standards of consumer services, the host Member
State be accorded the option of requiring that an aptitude test
be taken by an applicant in possession of evidence of formal
qualifications obtained in a third country and with three years’
professional experience certified by the Member State which
recognised that evidence in accordance with Article 2(2).

4.1.2.

E f f e c t s o f r e c o g n i t i o n

4.1.2.1.
in the first two sub-paragraphs.

The EESC welcomes the clear and straight wording

4.1.2.2.
However, the Committee has some reservations
about the application of Article 4(3) which stipulates that,
where the applicant’s profession constitutes an autonomous
activity of a profession covering a wider field of activities in
the host Member State and where the difference cannot be
made up by a compensatory measure, the applicant has access
to that activity alone in the host Member State. In this
particular case, the Committee fears the risk of consumer
confusion as to the competence of the professional whose
services are being sought. The Committee feels that the
professional concerned should be required to provide the
consumer with clear and precise information about the exact
scope of his or her field of activity.

(9) Cf. the High Level Task Force on skills and mobility, 14 December
2001 and Commission’s Action Plan for skills and mobility,
COM(2002) 72 and the Draft Directive on conditions of entry
and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of paid
employment and self-economic activities, COM(2001) 386 final.

C 61/70

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.3.2003

The EESC has already made the comment (cf 2.5) that it should
be clearly stated in the directive that partial access to a
profession should be an exception and not the general rule.

4.1.2.3.
In this context, the EESC has taken note of fears
from some national professional associations that the wording
in Article 4, paragraph 3 — and elsewhere — could be
interpreted as a signal for more uniform structures for national
professional associations. The EESC recommends that the
directive in its preamble include a statement that the purpose
of the directive is to promote and simplify mobility, not to
interfere in any way with the structures of national professional
associations.

4.2.

Title II — Free movement of services

4.2.1. A r t i c l e 5 , P r i n c i p l e o f

f r e e p r o v i s i o n

o f s e r v i c e s

4.2.1.1.
The EESC stresses that the aim of free provision of
services should be a high quality of services for European
citizens and the protection of safety and health of European
consumers, both in public and private services. The consumer
must be correctly informed in his/her mother tongue about
the provider and the conditions under which the service is
provided.

Generally speaking, it is impossible for the recipient
4.2.1.2.
of a service to ascertain the country in which a service provider
is established. The recipient must therefore be able to trust that
the service he or she is offered meets the consumer-protection
standards of the country in which it is provided. The Com-
mittee thus feels that the specific professional rules of the host
Member State must also be binding on service providers from
other Member States.

4.2.1.3.
The proposed directive envisages a lighter regime
for the provision of cross-frontier services than for establish-
ment, albeit with a safeguard clause. The mobility of service
providers within the Member States will be easier by giving
them the opportunity to work temporarily up to 16 weeks in
the host country under their own home title. The EESC
emphasises that this should not be interpreted as indicating a
difference as to the quality of services; it should instead be a
way of solving an administrative question. In this context, the
EESC would like to refer to Article 7 about the obligation for
the service provider to inform, in advance, the contact point
of the Member State of the establishment. This obligation is
valid also for temporarily arranged service provision.

4.2.1.4.
Article 7 of the proposed directive states that where
the service provider moves in order to provide services, he
shall, in advance, inform the contact point of the Member
State of establishment. This provision will no doubt create
some information and administrative problems, but would
function as a quality control mechanism.

4.2.1.5.
Under Article 9, Member States must ensure that
service providers fulfil their information obligations. To be
able to meet this task, the authorities of the host Member State
must be informed about the service provision. Also, the right
— established under Article 8 — of authorities of the host
Member State to seek information from the authorities of the
Member State of establishment is meaningless unless the host
Member State authorities are aware of the service provision.
The Committee therefore feels that the contact point of the
host Member State should also be informed about any planned
provision of services.

4.2.1.6. With regard to Article 8, the Committee also thinks
that a time limit should be set for replies from the competent
authorities.

4.2.1.7.
In addition to the information required under
Article 9 of the proposed directive, steps should also be taken
to ensure that the service provider furnishes the recipient of
the services with information about any insurance he or she
may have taken out against the financial risks potentially
arising from his or her professional liability.

Consumers should also be informed about the length of the
professional’s stay in their country, as they have to know
whether or not to expect a follow-up to their treatment, file or
case. They must also be informed about what means of
recourse they have should problems arise.

4.2.1.8.
To avoid ambiguities and difficulties, the Com-
mittee feels that it should be made clear whether the sixteen-
week period is calculated on the basis of calendar days or
working days. The Committee suggests opting for calendar
days, given that some professionals may also provide their
services at weekends.

4.3. Title III — Freedom of establishment

4.3.1. C h a p t e r I , G e n e r a l s y s t e m f o r t h e r e c -
o g n i t i o n o f e v i d e n c e o f t r a i n i n g

4.3.1.1.
This section essentially takes over the principles set
out by Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC. The general
system is based on the principle of mutual recognition
according to which any qualified professional following an
occupation in a Member State is entitled to the recognition of
his/her diploma to satisfy the requirement of
the same
profession in another Member State without being required to
re-qualify from scratch. Since there is no coordination of the
minimum training requirement, the general system does not
generally permit automatic recognition. The host Member
State can require compensatory measurers if there are substan-
tial differences between the training acquired by the migrant
and the training required in the host Member State. The
principle is retained in the draft directive.

14.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/71

4.3.1.2.
That said, applying the general system on a subsidi-
ary basis to members of professions that come under the
sectoral system is incompatible with the harmonisation of
minimum training requirements. Moreover, there is no further
point
to the sectoral system if non-compliance with the
minimum training requirements laid down therein automati-
cally triggers application of the general system.

4.3.1.3.
Ultimately, this would create a two-tier profession
of those whose training meets the minimum requirements of
the sectoral directive, and those whose training does not. It is,
however, impossible for consumers to make that distinction
and they themselves have no way of differentiating between
qualified and less qualified providers.

4.3.1.4.
The Committee feels that current practice —
whereby Member States assess applicants’ knowledge and
skills individually and stipulate appropriate, proportionate
compensation measures based on ECJ case law — is adequate
and consumer-friendly. It should therefore be retained.

4.3.2. A r t i c l e 1 1 , L e v e l s o f q u a l i f i c a t i o n

4.3.2.1.
Five levels of professional qualifications are set out
in theoretical terms. Levels I to III correspond to the three levels
of qualifications covered by Directive 92/51/EEC. Directive
89/48/EEC has been split into levels IV and V. Recognition is
granted on the basis of the draft Directive only if the level
required in the host Member State is no higher than the level
immediately above that attested by the applicant’s evidence of
qualifications. The present system allows bridge mechanisms
between the general Directives 92/51/EEC and 89/48/EEC.

It

takes into
is a step forward that the draft
4.3.2.2.
consideration the distinction between different levels of higher
education. The EESC, however, notices that the levels of
qualification do not correspond with general EU education
policies and the trend in the so-called Bologna process for
higher education.

4.3.2.3.
Article 11:

The EESC proposes the following amendments to

— Level 5 corresponds to training at higher education level
and of a minimum duration of four years and less than
five years.

— Level 6 corresponds to training at a higher education

level and of a minimum duration of five years.

4.3.3. A r t i c l e
n i t i o n

1 3 , C o n d i t i o n s

f o r

r e c o g -

4.3.3.2.
The EESC notices that certified regulated training
makes it unnecessary for a migrant worker coming from a
Member State, which does not regulate the profession in
question, to demonstrate two years’ professional experience.

4.3.4. A r t i c l e 1 4 , C o m p e n s a t i o n m e a s u r e s

Statistics show that more than 80 % of

4.3.4.1.
the
applications are accepted without compensatory measures.
There must however be a possibility for compensatory
measures, such as an aptitude test or an adaptation period, if
there are substantial differences in the education and training
of the applicant and that one required in by the host. The EESC
emphasises that the host Member State should have the right
to deem which of the two compensatory measures should be
required from an applicant, with respect to the principle of
proportionality.

The EESC notices that substantial differences are
4.3.4.2.
interpreted in the draft, in terms of duration and content of
the training required by the host Member State, and stresses
that the relevant authorities should concentrate on the current
competencies not the initial training of the applicant. There is
a need for common methods for taking into account the
professional experience and competencies acquired through
continuous training.

In Article 14,

4.3.4.3.
the Commission would abolish
the possibility for a Member State to require professional
experience rather than a compensation measure in the event
of substantial differences relating to the duration and not the
content of training. The key words here are obviously ‘duration
and not the content’ of the training. This means that it will not
be possible for an applicant to compensate shorter training
with a substantial period of professional experience. The EESC
would have welcomed an analysis of the possible effects of
this proposal.

4.3.4.4.
The draft directive stipulates that if a Member State
considers that it can or will not give an applicant a choice
between an adaptation period and an aptitude test, it shall
inform the other Member States and the Commission in
advance and provide sufficient justification for the derogation.
The EESC sees the merit of such a stipulation, since it will
make it more difficult to introduce new obstacles for the
mobility. The stipulation illustrates the need for the build-up
of a very efficient network of national contact points for the
implementation of the directive.

4.3.3.1.
Article 3 of Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC.

The contents are essentially taken over

from

The respect for the code of conduct approved by
4.3.4.5.
the group of coordinators for the general system of recognition
of diplomas should be ensured.

C 61/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.3.2003

4.3.4.6.
The increasing mobility together with efforts to
encourage it are already stimulating increased comparison and
convergence of qualifications and training. This makes it all
the more important to provide increased clarity and simplicity
in the conditions applicable to temporary and occasional
cross-frontier provision of services.

4.3.5. A r t i c l e 1 5 , C o m m o n p l a t f o r m s

4.3.5.1.
The EESC strongly welcomes the introduction in
the draft directive of common European platforms, to be
proposed by the relevant professional associations at European
level, and after necessary consultation with Member States
adopted by the Commission. According to the draft directive
a common platform means a set of criteria of professional
qualifications which attest to a sufficient level of competence
for the pursuit of a given profession and on the basis of which
those associations accredit the qualifications obtained in the
Member States. When, on the basis of existing or future
common platforms, qualification criteria are set by a decision
taken at Community level (the Committee on Recognition of
Professional Qualifications), the Member States will no longer
impose compensatory measures. This coupling between com-
mon platforms and compensatory measures is highly interest-
ing, and should be supported.

— be representative for its respective professional group at

the national level (within the Member State).

4.3.5.4.
The European Commission should establish a
European register of common platforms. The register should
be inserted on the One-Stop Mobility information site with
links to the organisations setting up the platforms.

4.3.5.5.
Some European federations of professional associ-
ations (such as the European Federation of Psychologists’
Association (EFPA), the European Council of Geodetic Sur-
veyors (CLGE), the European Communities Confederation of
Clinical Chemistry (EC4) etc.) have declared their support of
the draft directive, and at the same time announced that they
will submit a proposal for a common platform in accordance
with Article 15. The EESC welcomes these first opportunities
to test the procedures envisaged in the draft directive.

4.3.6. C h a p t e r

I I ,

R e c o g n i t i o n

o f

p r o -

f e s s i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e

4.3.5.2.
The EESC thinks that this form of active involve-
ment by European professional associations might be a good
way to make professional recognition simple, more automatic,
predictable and transparent. The method must, however,
provide adequate guarantees as regards the applicant’s level of
qualification.

4.3.6.1.
The principle from the present system is retained.
The draft provides for automatic recognition of qualifications
on the basis of the applicant’s attested professional experience
in the case of the craft, industrial and commercial activities.
The EESC feels that the distinction between years ‘on a self-
employed basis or as a company director’ and years ‘on an
employed basis’ needs careful consideration.

4.3.5.3.
Therefore the EESC requires clear criteria for the
European professional associations that may apply for com-
mon platforms. Such a European professional association
must:

— cover as far as possible all EU countries;

— promote and maintain a high standard in the professional
field concerned by providing for the upward convergence
of initial training and for requirements regarding continu-
ing training;

— promote regular external evaluations of the standard of

its members’ services in the Member States;

— award an attest of a certain level of professional qualifi-
cations where this is not the responsibility of the Member
State;

4.3.7. C h a p t e r
o f
c o o r d i n a t i o n
t r a i n i n g c o n d i t i o n s

I I I , R e c o g n i t i o n o n t h e b a s i s
t h e m i n i m u m

o f

4.3.7.1.
The training for the professions (general prac-
titioner and specialised doctor, nurse responsible for general
care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, pharmacist and
architect) covered by the present sectoral directives has to a
certain extent been harmonised at the EU-level Therefore
national qualifications have in principle been recognised
automatically. This section takes over the principle governing
automatic recognition of evidence of training. However, the
scope of the new directive may put a new focus on existing
more general differences such as the number of years needed
for a specific profession.

— ensure that the members of its member associations
respect the rules of professional conduct which it pre-
scribes; and

The Committee emphasises that the objective of establishing
high quality in education and training and patient/client
services must be maintained.

14.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/73

5. Comments on specific professions

6. Documentation and procedures

5.1.
The proposed directive includes an important change
in the number of medical specialisations that will be included
in an annex to the directive. From the present 52 specialisations
administered by way of the present sectoral directive, there
would in the future be only 18 specialisations included in the
annex, whereas the other 34 would be regarded as part of the
general system. As there seems to be some confusion as to the
number of specialisations the EESC recommends that the
European Commission makes an update of the annex in
question.

5.2.
A number of medical professional associations have
underlined that this would mean a separation of the medical
specialisations in two groups, one with clear quality guarantees,
one with more general quality marks. The EESC understands
the need for including in an annex only those specialisations
that are identified in all Member States. On the other hand,
there is no doubt a risk that this separation of the medical
specialisations could have negative effects for those specialis-
ations that are treated under the general system. The EESC is
of the opinion that this separation is not good, and rec-
ommends that all present specialisations be listed in the annex.

5.3.
Pharmacists have expressed their wish to maintain the
derogation provided under Article 2(2) of Directive 85/433/
EEC whereby Member States need not give effect to the
diplomas, certificates and other formal certificates awarded to
nationals of Member States by other Member States with
respect to the establishment of new pharmacies open to the
public. Pharmacies which have been in operation for less than
three years are also regarded as new. In order to maintain high
standards in the pharmaceutical services provided to the
European public and to ensure a good geographical distri-
bution of pharmacies, the Committee recommends that this
derogation be incorporated into Article 41 of the proposed
directive.

The architects are inclined to favour standing outside
5.4.
of the new directive. The quality aspects are regarded as
particularly important in this regard. On the other hand, the
introduction to the draft directive emphasises at some length
the quality aspects of the profession of architect. Bearing in
mind the extent to which the Commission is trying to meet
the interests of the architects in the draft directive, the EESC
would recommend that the architects are included in the new
directive.

5.5.
Another example is the veterinary profession which
has to provide a high level of consumer protection, prevent
and combat animal diseases and guarantee animal welfare.
Therefore the quality aspects of the new directive are of
particular importance.

6.1. Article 46

The EESC has noticed that administrative formalities tend to
be implemented in varies ways in the Member States. The
Code of Conduct approved by the group of coordinators for
the general system of recognition of diplomas has made it
possible to define, through the experience gained by the
Commission and the Member States, which practices are
preferable, which are acceptable and which are not. The code
of conduct might need updating in line with the new
framework directive.

6.2. Article 47

The EESC notices that competent authorities must give a
reasoned decision not later then three months after the date
on which the applicant’s complete file was submitted. For the
general system this means that the time has been cut down
from the current four months, which is positive from the
applicant’s point of view.

6.3. Article 48, Use of professional titles

The EESC notes that where, pursuant to Article 4(3), access to
a profession in the host Member State is partial, the Member
State may add a reference to that effect to the professional
qualification. The Committee considers it vital to ensure that
this reference is not understood by consumers as indicating
any specialism, but, on the contrary, as a restriction on the
professional’s field of competence.

6.4. Article 49, Knowledge of languages

The EESC is of the firm opinion that certain knowledge of the
language/s of the host country is essential for the pursuit of a
profession. Language requirements, however, must not affect
the basic freedom of movement for workers guaranteed in the
Treaty. Language requirements must be necessary and imposed
in a proportionate manner, and always coupled with relevant
measures for arranging additional linguistic training.

6.5.
The EESC stresses the importance of language training
as part of mobility and therefore endorses the proposal in the
Commission Action Plan on Skills and Mobility that Member
States should provide for the early acquisition of foreign
language skills in pre-primary and primary schools and for its
strengthening in secondary schools and in vocational training
institutions.

C 61/74

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.3.2003

6.6.
In doing so, it will be of high importance to take full
account of the needs of the European labour markets. Social
partners should make provision for suitable language training
for workers where appropriate as part of their competence
development plans. The
for mobility-promoting
efforts
language training will obviously have to encompass all groups
in the labour market. Following the European Year of
Languages, the Commission will come forward with proposals
for action with a view to promoting foreign language learning.
The EESC will in due course have the opportunity to comment
on these plans.

7. Title V — Administrative cooperation and responsi-

bility for implementation

7.1.5.
Direct links to the Internet sites of European pro-
fessional associations and of social partners should provide
authoritative information on specific professions. Applicants
should be helped to navigate to other private Internet sites
dealing with recognition of qualifications; a number of such
sites are available and can offer additional information.

7.1.6.
The EESC supports the proposal in the Action Plan
on skills and mobility and the Barcelona conclusions that the
Commission and Member States should launch an information
campaign on mobility in 2003. Social partners and other
interested parties are invited to initiate sectoral information
campaigns.

7.1. Competent authorities and contact points

8. Article 54, Committee on the recognition of pro-

fessional qualifications

7.1.1.
The draft directive underlines the need for substan-
tially improved information and consultation services at
national level. In the course of the establishment of the Internal
Market, various forms of contact points and information
services have been built up. The amount of questions and
contacts from enterprises or from the broad public have been
rather limited so far. When the new directive is in force, and
the envisaged more ambitious information on service providers
will be more widely known, it can be expected that the Internal
Market information networks will have a radically new amount
of contacts. In the field of education and specifically higher
education, some well established information centres already
exist: the NARICS (National Academic Recognition Infor-
mation Centre) which are the contact points on higher
education professions and the NRCVG’s (National Resource
Centre for Vocational Guidance) and the national reference
points for vocational training.

However,

7.1.2.
the EESC must make the observation
that the new directive will give the Member States a quite
considerable new administrative challenge.

7.1.3.
The proposed new procedures will also necessitate,
particularly in the beginning, substantial administrative efforts
by the European Commission. The EESC would have appreci-
ated an overview of the total administrative costs for the new
directive.

8.1.
One single committee to administer the Directive and
its updating is proposed. All committees set up under the
current system should be abolished.

8.2.
The EESC notes that the scope of this committee
should be very wide ranking, from doctors to architects, plus
the whole range of professions from higher education to craft
and trade under the general system. The EESC agrees that
comitology procedures are suited to the updating of technical
requirements, but doubts that they can be appropriate for the
adoption of reliable guarantees on the quality of education
and training. The Community action/regime in the area of
professional recognition is focused on free movement. The
advisory committees have focused on training. The future
regime must provide for a mechanism that guarantees a similar
input from the profession in question as advisory committees
to the updating of education and training. This does not only
concern the professions that follow the principle of automatic
recognition but other professional groups as well. The pro-
fessions must have the opportunity to be both proactive and
put forward proposals for change and reactive to respond to a
request from the Committee.

7.1.4.
The EESC assumes that the existing initiatives admini-
stered under DG Market such as The Europe Direct Call Centre
Signpost service and the Dialogue with Citizens will be linked
to the One-Stop European Mobility Information Site as
proposed in the Action Plan on mobility and the Barcelona
conclusions.

8.3.
It is essential, in the opinion of the EESC, that any
arrangement made for a consultation mechanism is confirmed
in an appropriate legal
form which guarantees that the
consultation is maintained in the future. The key aspect is to
shape the guarantee for consultation in an appropriate and
binding form.

14.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/75

The EESC proposes that Article 54, a new third

8.4.
subparagraph is included with the following wording:

— ‘The Committee shall, in appropriate forms, regularly
consult professional associations,
the social partners
and other relevant stakeholders on matters concerning
implementation and development of the directive. Initiat-
ives for such consultation may also be taken by the
relevant professional associations and social partners.’

8.5. When the Community regime for professional recog-
nition was conceived 40 years ago geographic mobility mainly
took place among unskilled workers. Today skilled employees
are the most movable group on the internal labour market.
Mobility is regarded as a means to increase employment and
the competitiveness of the EU. In order to build stronger links
to the real world of work it will be important to involve
actively the social partners in the recognition process.

9. Conclusions

9.1. Need for an overall strategy

9.1.1.
The EESC is aware that the formal competence of
DG Internal Market concerning professional recognition lies
within the field of the EU regime for recognition of regulated
professions. At the same time it is aware that an increasing
proportion of the labour market operates outside the regulated
area where transparency and mutual trust are the key elements
for recognition of qualifications and competences.

9.1.2.
Therefore the EESC has chosen an overall perspective
on the issue of recognition and endorses the invitation of the
Employment and Social Policy Council to the Commission on
3 June 2002 to promote, in close cooperation with the Council
and the Member States, increased cooperation in education
and training based on the issue of transparency and quality
assurance, in order to develop a framework for recognition of
qualifications (ECTS, diploma and certificate supplements,
European CV), building on achievements of
the Bologna
process and promoting similar action in the area of vocational
training. Such cooperation should ensure the active involve-
ment of the social partners, the vocational education and
training institutions and other relevant stakeholders.

9.1.3. With considerable pleasure, the EESC has noticed
that actions in the field of recognition have recently been given
high priority on the European policy agenda. Synergies
between these actions should be strengthened in order to
achieve an overall strategy.

9.1.4.
So far many recognition initiatives have been
developed in isolation from each other. Common platforms

will be created under Article 15 in the consolidated recognition
directive monitored by DG Internal market. DG Education
will monitor the issue of voluntary minimum standards in
education and training in order to facilitate professional
recognition of non-regulated professions. Will the non-regu-
lated professional groups create their common platforms as
well? The Forum on Transparency for vocational training will
coordinate the issue of recognising informal and non-formal
learning. The sector committees established through the
European social dialogue may be used to pursue work on
sectoral qualifications.

9.1.5.
A number of industries such as the ITC, automobile
and aeronautics are developing their own European or inter-
national approaches to qualifications’ standards. Some of them
aim at European diplomas to be offered on a voluntary basis.
There are a number of Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci projects
dealing with recognition issues. The Tuning project is aiming
at convergence within certain higher education subjects.

9.1.6.
Because of the Bologna process aiming at a European
area for higher education by the year 2010 and the similar so
called Bruges process for vocational training, there will be two
parallel convergence and harmonisation processes in the field
of European education and training. The social partners will
be involved in the Bruges process, but have so far been kept
out of the Bologna process. The EESC thinks that the parallel
instruments and services for vocational education and training
and higher education should be coordinated, since the bound-
aries between the two fields have been blurred, and the social
partners ought to be integrated in actions in both the fields.
The national reference points for vocational qualifications
need to be closely integrated with the parallel NARIC service
related to higher education.

9.1.7.
The EESC strongly emphasises that there is a need
for synergy and policy coherence between DG Internal Market,
which deals with mobility issues, DG Education and Culture,
which is responsible for European projects concerning quality
of education and training and DG Employment which has a
number of social dialogue committees.

9.1.8.
In the view of the EESC, it is imperative to reach a
policy framework for the whole field of recognition. The
present draft directive is only a step in this direction. The EESC
strongly advocates the setting-up of a joint European platform
or round table with the objective to draw up guidelines for
coordination of recognition of regulated and non-regulated
higher education professions and vocational education and
training as well as informal and non-formal learning. Such a
joint European platform or round table, being composed of
the European Commission and other European institutions,
the Member States and other relevant partners, such as
educational
social partners and professional
associations, would give a new impetus to the overall efforts
to promote and stimulate mobility in the European Union. In
the perspective of Enlargement, such efforts will be all the

institutions,

C 61/76

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.3.2003

more essential — and so will
coordination.

the need for good policy

9.1.9.
future work on education and employment policies.

The EESC will give these issues high priority in its

Brussels, 18 September 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation
concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial
matters and in matters of parental responsibility repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 and
amending Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 in matters relating to maintenance’

(COM(2002) 222 final — 2002/0110 (CNS))

(2003/C 61/15)

On 28 May 2002, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262
of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 September 2002. The rapporteur was Mrs
Carroll, the co-rapporteurs were Mr Retureau and Mr Burnel.

At its 393rd Plenary Session (meeting of 18 September 2002), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 129 votes in favour and two votes against with three abstentions.

1. Background to the proposal

1.1.
In September, 2001, the Commission put forward a
Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction and the
recognition and enforcement of
judgments in matters of
parental responsibility (1). The Committee gave its opinion on
in January 2002 (2). This was not the only
this proposal
Community instrument in the area of jurisdiction and recog-
nition and enforcement in relation to matrimonial matters
the
and parental responsibility for children. Accordingly,
Committee urged the Commission to consolidate all such
legislation into one instrument. The Council was already
considering this matter and the current integrated proposal is
the result.

1.2.
Given the increase in movement within the EU, there
has been a concomitant increase in the number of marital and
other family relationships between citizens and residents of
EU Member States. Unfortunately, this has meant an increase

( 1) COM(2001) 505 final.
( 2) OJ C 80, 3.4.2002, p. 41.

in the numbers of divorce, annulments and separations
involving citizens of different Member States. Disputes arising
in judicial or administrative proceedings — always difficult —
can be complicated by issues of jurisdiction, with parties to
the proceedings forum shopping or seeking to have judgments
handed down in one Member State overturned in their own
Member State.

1.3.
Disputes relating to access to and/or custody of
children following the divorce or separation give rise to a
limited, but not negligible number of cases of child abduction,
both to other Member States and to third countries by parents
or other relatives. Even where there has been no forceful
abduction, rights of access for a parent may be compromised
by the fears of parents or guardians with custody that, if they
allow a child to leave their own jurisdiction, it will be difficult
or impossible for them to enforce the judgment giving them
custody, if the child fails to return. This is to the detriment of
both the child and the other parent.