WRITTEN QUESTION E-3195/03 by Ursula Stenzel (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Recognition of the profession of (clinical) optometrist.
Date: 2003-10-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, freedom to provide services, paramedical profession, right of establishment

C 78 E/788

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0838)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3195/03

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject: Recognition of the profession of (clinical) optometrist

Does the fact that that the profession of (clinical) optometrist, which is already well established in EU
territory, particularly in the United Kingdom, Ireland and the Netherlands, does not exist in Austria and
that EU citizens who have gained licences to practise their profession of (clinical) optometry in other EU
Member States are barred from doing so in Austria represent a violation of European law, particularly with
regard to freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services?

Under European law, should Member States where the profession of (clinical) optometrist is not regulated
by law not recognise this profession, enabling EU citizens to practise their profession under the same
conditions in any EU Member State?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Under the settled case law of the Court of Justice,
in the absence of harmonisation of a particular
professional activity Member States are in principle entitled to regulate the exercise of that activity,
provided they respect the basic freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty (Judgment of 11 July 2002, Case
C-294/00, Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für Naturheilverfahren GmbH v. Kurt Gräbner).

According to the information available to the Commission, there is no exact Austrian equivalent of the
profession of clinical optometrist as it exists in other Member States. In Austria this activity appears to be
reserved for doctors.

In its Bouchoucha and Mac Quen judgments (Judgments of 3 October 1990, Case C-61/89, and
1 February 2001, Case C-108/96), the Court of Justice stated that a Member State was not in breach of
Article 43 of the EC Treaty if it introduced such a restriction on grounds of the general interest in the
protection of public health.

In this connection, it should also be pointed out that according to Article 46(1) of the EC Treaty the
protection of public health is one of the grounds which can justify restrictions on the freedom of
establishment. Under Article 55 of the Treaty, the provisions of Article 46(1) also apply to the freedom to
provide services.

The Commission is not in possession of any further information which would establish an infringement of
Community law.

(2004/C 78 E/0839)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3196/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject: Problems with construction activity, the protection of forests and building cooperatives in Greece

Over recent years in particular the situation in Greece regarding construction activity, the protection of
forests and building cooperatives has become quite chaotic. The recent suicide (12 October 2003) of a
public official
in Athens focused public attention on the situation regarding the issuing of planning
permission in a country where hundreds of thousands of unauthorised buildings have already been put up
(according to statements by Mrs Vasso Papandreos the Minister responsible) and concerning the political
pressure being brought to bear on Greek public servants.