WRITTEN QUESTION E-2332/03 by Franz Turchi (UEN) to the Commission. Non-compliance by Italy with Article 43 TEC.
Date: 2003-07-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, access to a profession, application of EU law, case-law (EU), dentist, free movement of workers, recognition of diplomas, right of establishment

C 84 E/486

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(2004/C 84 E/0563)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2332/03

by Franz Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Non-compliance by Italy with Article 43 TEC

Article 43 (ex Article 52) of the Treaty establishing the European Community prohibits any restrictions on
the freedom of establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State.
The European Court of Justice ruling in the Kraus case of 31 March 1993 specified that these freedoms are
also enjoyed by citizens of a Member State who, after obtaining a professional qualification recognised by
Community law, are in an analogous situation vis-à-vis their Member State of origin to all other persons
who enjoy the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty.

As regards the medical and allied and pharmaceutical professions, the abolition of restrictions is facilitated,
pursuant to Article 47 TEC, by coordination of the conditions for the exercise of these professions in the
various Member States and through directives on the mutual recognition of qualifications and the
harmonisation of national requirements for the taking-up and pursuit of employment.

In its ruling on the Hocsman case, the Court of Justice specified that Article 43 TEC requires the national
authorities to carry out a comparison, on a case-by-case basis, of the diplomas obtained by the persons
concerned, including diplomas awarded by third countries. Under Directive 78/686/EEC (1), each Member
State must recognise the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in dentistry
awarded to nationals of Member States by the other Member States in accordance with Directive 78/687/
EEC (2), by giving such qualifications, as far as the right to take up and pursue the activities of a dental
practitioner is concerned, the same effect in its territory as those which that Member State itself awards.
On 11 and 13 March 2003, three complaints against Italy for violation of Article 43 TEC were submitted
to the European Commission by Italian nationals with diplomas in dentistry issued either by a Member
State or by a third country, Croatia, which had already been recognised in another Member State but
which Italy did not recognise.

In a letter of 21 November 2001, the European Commission drew the Italian authorities’ attention to the
need to respect the principles and obligations enshrined in European case law. In the light of the above,
would the Commission not consider it opportune to take action, if necessary in the form of a letter of
formal notice, to ensure that the Italian authorities put a stop to these reported violations of Community
law?

(1) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 10.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2003)

The question of Italy’s recognition of qualifications in dentistry obtained in third countries by Community
nationals which have already been recognised in another Member State of the European Union, is one with
which the Commission is well acquainted, mainly on account of petitions 34, 105 and 303/2000 (1).

The Commission would like to make it clear that, in accordance with the ECJ case-law in Case C-238/98
Hocsman (2), the Italian authorities took a decision in March 2002 on the application for professional
recognition by the parties concerned, after having taken their training and professional experience into
account. The fact that the Italian authorities made this recognition conditional upon an aptitude test in a
certain number of subjects is not in itself contrary to Community law, as this possibility follows from the
aforementioned case-law.

The complaints received by the Commission in March 2003 specifically contest the decisions taken. These
complaints are currently being examined by the Commission, which will pay particular attention to
the Court’s latest ruling on the recognition of third-country diplomas, delivered on 19 June 2003 in
Case C-110/01 Malika Tennah-Durez (3).

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/487

The Commission is well aware that it is a matter of urgency for the complainants that the problems
encountered be solved. They will be informed of the outcome of this investigation as soon as it is available.

(1) These petitions were closed on 21 March 2003.
(2) ECR p. I-6623.
(3) Not yet published in the ECR.

(2004/C 84 E/0564)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2341/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 July 2003)

Subject: Letters to the Greek authorities on the proper use of Community Regional Policy funds

In his answer to my Written Question E-1830/03 (1), Commissioner Barnier made general remarks about
the procedure for sending letters, but avoided answering my question. I shall therefore repeat the question:
Can the Commission say how many letters it has sent to the Greek authorities since 1994 and from whom
(Commissioners, directors-general or heads of division) concerning the proper use of Community funds
and the transposition and proper implementation of Community regional policy legislation?

(1) See page 478.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(1 September 2003)

The Commission would impress on the Honourable Member the very great difficulty of determining the
exact number of letters sent to the Greek authorities over the last ten years on the topic of proper use of
Community funds and correct application of Structural Fund rules. One reason is the multiplicity of
Commission departments involved.

The volume of these letters is certainly very large since they concern more than 100 programmes and have
been sent from different levels of the Community administration to the national authorities at central,
regional and local level. Dispatch of such letters is a routine matter given the Member States’ accountability
for utilisation of Community funds in line with the rules drawn up at Community level. By way of
example,
in May this year the Regional Policy Directorate-General’s unit for Greece sent the Greek
authorities a total of eighteen letters.

(2004/C 84 E/0565)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2350/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 July 2003)

Subject: Protection of the Darwin Mounds

Further to its reply to Written Question P-0213/03 (1) concerning the protection of the Darwin Mounds,
will the Commission confirm whether it has been contacted by the UK Government with a request or with
justification for the use of emergency powers by the Commission as provided by Article 7 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (2) in respect of this area? If so, will the Commission also confirm the date
on which this approach was first made by the UK Government, given the implication that this had not
occurred at the time of the Commission’s response to Question P-0213/03?

(1) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 195.
(2) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59.