GREEN PAPER Modernising the Professional Qualifications Directive
Date: 2011-06-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: freedom to provide services, health care profession, occupational migration, recognition of diplomas, recognition of vocational training qualifications, town-planning profession

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 22.6.2011 
COM(2011) 367 final 

GREEN PAPER 

Modernising the Professional Qualifications Directive 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

 
 
 
 
  
 
INTRODUCTION 

1. 
EU citizens1 providing a wide range of professional services to consumers  and  business are 
essential stakeholders in our economy. Gaining employment or providing services in another 
Member State is a concrete example of how they can benefit from the Single Market. It has 
long  been  recognised  that  restrictive  regulation  of  professional  qualifications  has  the  same 
stifling  effect  on  mobility  as  discrimination  on  the  grounds  of  nationality.  Recognition  of 
qualifications  obtained  in  another  Member  State  has  thus  become  a  fundamental  building 
block  of  the  Single  Market.  As  highlighted  in  the  Europe  2020  Strategy2  and  the  Single 
Market Act3, professional mobility is a key element of Europe's competitiveness. Burdensome 
and unclear procedures for the recognition of professional qualifications were identified in the 
EU Citizenship Report 20104 as one of the main obstacles EU citizens still encounter in their 
daily  lives  when  exercising  their  rights  under  EU  law  across  national  borders.  A 
modernisation would also strenghten the position of the European Union in international trade 
negotiations  making  regulatory  convergence  easier,  and  allowing  the  EU  to  obtain  better 
market access in third countries for EU citizens. 

Mobility of professionals is still low in the EU. The number of complaints, SOLVIT cases and 
questions raised with Your Europe Advice and analysis of these cases provide clear evidence 
of  a  need  to  modernise  the  rules.  In  addition,  intra-EU  trade  in  services  (including 
professional services) represents only about 25% of overall trade within the EU. This share is 
far too low when considered against the background of the overall importance of the services 
sector to the EU economy (70% of GDP). More can be achieved.  

Increased mobility would also respond to the challenge of filling high-skill jobs, as the active 
population declines. According to the projections of the European Centre for the Development 
of  Vocational  Training  (Cedefop),  16  million  more  people  will  be  needed  to  fill  high-skill 
jobs  by  20205,  which  under  current  trends  will  lead  to  severe  shortages  of  qualified 
professionals.  Some  of  these  skills  shortages  could  be  filled  by  people  with  professional 
qualifications  obtained  outside  the  EU,  who  currently  face  major  problems  in  having  their 
qualifications recognised. 

A  projected  shortage  of  one  million  health  professionals  is  of  particular  concern.  How 
countries  can  better  manage  mobility  of  health  professionals  by  further  strengthening  their 
general  workforce  policies,  and  further  elaborating  workforce  planning  mechanisms  will  be 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

This  also  concerns  third  country  nationals  who  enjoy  rights  under  European  legislation:  family 
members of EU citizens, long term residents, refugees, and “blue card” holders are treated in the same 
way as EU citizens with respect to recognition of professional qualifications. 
Communication  from  the  Commission  Europe  2020,  A  strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive 
growth - COM(2010) 2020, 3.3.2010. 
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European economic 
and social Committee and the Committee of regions, Single Market Act, Twelve levers to boost growth 
and  strengthen  confidence,  "Working  together  to  create  new  growth"  -  COM(2011)  206,  SEC(2011) 
467. 
EU  Citizenship  report  2010  "Dismantling  the  obstacles  to  EU  citizens'  rights"  -  COM(2010)  603, 
27.10.2010. 
Skill supply and demand in Europe: medium-term forecast up to 2020 (2010), available at  
http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/Files/3052_en.pdf 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
                                                 
subject of separate action by the Commission and the Member States6.  

Enabling citizens to realise their individual right to work anywhere in the EU must been seen 
in this wider context. To take full advantage of the freedom of movement, professionals must 
have  their  qualifications  easily  recognised  in  other  Member  States7.  It  is  therefore  essential 
that  the  Professional  Qualifications  Directive8  sets  out  clear  and  simple  rules  for  the 
recognition of professional qualifications. At the same time, the rules must ensure high quality 
of  services  without  themselves  becoming  an  obstacle  to  mobility.  The  European  Union  has 
already  achieved  a  lot  in  this  area:  some  professional  qualifications,  notably  in  the  areas  of 
health, architecture, crafts, trade and industry are subject to automatic recognition; for all the 
other professions, the principle of mutual recognition on the basis of a “general system” has 
been  introduced  successfully.  In  2005,  these  rules  were  complemented  by  a  new  lighter 
regime  to  facilitate  temporary  mobility.  These  rules  benefit  millions  of  professionals  in 
Europe. It is estimated, that the system of automatic recognition on the basis of harmonised 
minimum training requirements alone applies to 6.4 million citizens9.  

In  March  2010,  the  Commission  launched  an  evaluation  of  the  Directive  which  mobilised 
many stakeholders: around two hundred competent authorities drew up experience reports in 
2010 and around four hundred participants gave their views in a public consultation in early 
2011.  The  Green  Paper  builds  on  this  evaluation.  It  presents  new  ideas  for  facilitating 
mobility in the Single Market, such as the European Professional Card (see part 2); it explores 
ways to build on achievements (see part 3); and it sets out the options for the modernisation of 
automatic  recognition  (see  part  4).  A  broad  consultation  on  these  ideas  will  help  the 
Commission  to  assess  the  various  options  for  the  modernisation  of  the  Professional 
Qualifications Directive.  

A legislative proposal to modernise the Directive is planned for the end of 2011.  

2. 

NEW APPROACHES TO MOBILITY 

2.1. 

The European professional card  

Modernisation should draw on the latest technologies to offer new tools for mobility. These 
technologies  have  the  potential  both  to  enable  professionals  to  become  more  mobile  and 
improve  information  to  consumers  and  employers  about  professionals'  qualifications  for  the 
services they offer. A European professional card could be built around fast communication 
technologies of the 21st century to create a mechanism which will give it concrete and well-
tailored effects under a modernised Professional Qualifications Directive. The Internal Market 
Information  system  (IMI)  could  facilitate  much  faster  cooperation  between  the  issuing 
Member State (the professional's country of departure) and the receiving Member State (the 
country  where  the  professional  seeks  establishment).  Faster  cooperation  between  the  two 

6 

7 

8 

9 

A further issue concerns sea-related regulated professions where the Commission intends to publish in 
2012  a  Communication  on  Blue  Growth,  sustainable  growth  from  the  oceans,  seas  and  coasts.  The 
Commission is, in that perspective, interested to understand whether in this area any specific obstacles 
to mutual recognition can be identified. 
Difficulties  linked  with  the  recognition  of  professional  qualifications  are  one  of  the  obstacles  to 
professionals  mobility  within  the  EU,  along  others  such  as  portability  of  pension  rights,  language 
barriers etc. 
Directive  2005/36/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  7  September  2005  on  the 
recognition of professional qualifications (OJ L 225, 30.9.2005, p. 22). 
Internal Market Scoreboard, July 2010. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
countries would enable a fast-track recognition process for the  card holder. Cooperation via 
the IMI should also be subject to deadlines which Member States should be bound to respect 
in the future. In the same vein, temporary mobility could become much simpler for the card-
holding  professional:  any  information  obligations  that  the  receiving  country  can  currently 
impose  would  become  redundant  with  all  the  necessary  information  either  featured  on  the 
card itself or available from the country of departure which issued the card by means of the 
fast electronic infrastructure. 

Mobilising the Member State of departure 

Under the current system, the receiving Member State is responsible for the verification of the 
migrating  professional's  qualifications.  This  can  create  difficulties  for  the  professional,  who 
may need to submit translations of various documents. It can also be a resource-intensive task 
for  the  competent  authority  in  the  receiving  Member  State,  which  may  not  be  familiar  with 
the  way  qualifications  are  acquired  in  other  Member  States.  A  European  professional  card, 
issued  by  the  competent  authority  in  the  Member  State  where  the  qualification  is  acquired, 
and under the condition that the professional is entitled to practice, could facilitate the process 
by increasing the role of the Member State of departure at an early stage.  

When issuing such a card, the competent authority in the Member State of departure would 
have to check that applicants hold the correct qualifications and satisfy any other conditions 
as  may  be  required  under  a  modernised  Directive,  for  example  that  they  are  legally 
established or that their diplomas are authentic. This authority would also store the documents 
which  justified  the  issuance  of  the  card  and  make  them  available  to  its  counterpart  in  the 
receiving Member State, as necessary. To ensure mutual trust, the card would not be issued by 
any commercial entities. When a profession is not regulated in the Member State of departure 
it  would  be  up  to  that  Member  State  to  designate  a  competent  public  authority  to  issue  the 
card (e.g. contact points10 or NARIC centres11). 

Under  this  system,  authorities  in  the  receiving  Member  State  would  not  have  to  engage 
administrative resources to verify all the information that has already been examined by the 
Member  State  of  departure.  Verifying  the  validity  of  the  card  itself  might  be  sufficient  to 
confirm that the holder can exercise the profession in the host Member State.  

The Internal Market Information System (IMI) could be relied upon in this context as a "back 
office" for cooperation between competent authorities. This would require that all competent 
authorities  that  issue  and  verify  the  card  are  registered  with  the  IMI,  allowing  them  to 
communicate  with  each  other  if  they  have  any  questions.  A  significant  proportion  of 
competent authorities across the EU are already registered; others are expected to register by 
the end of 2012.  

Mobilising the receiving Member State 

For  the  professional  wishing  to  provide  services  on  a  temporary  basis,  a  professional  card 
could  substitute  the  administrative  documents  supporting  prior  declaration,  which  most 

10 

11 

Article 57 of the Directive obliges Member States to designate a contact point in order to provide the 
citizens and contact points of other Member States with information and to assist citizens in realising 
their rights. 
National  Academic  Recognition  Information  Centres  (NARIC)  assist  citizens  with  issues  related  to 
academic qualifications. For more information see 
http://www.enic-naric.net/index.aspx?s=n&r=g&d=about#NARIC. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
Member  States  require  on  the  basis  of  Article  7  of  the  Directive.  An  e-mail  indicating  the 
professional's card number could be sufficient. The card holder could even be exempted from 
the prior declaration regime altogether, because the card containing the necessary information 
could be sufficient. It could be shown to the authorities and the recipients of services in the 
host Member State instead of sending a declaration. Temporary mobility would become much 
simpler, while any necessary controls would still be possible.  

Similar  benefits  could  be  achieved  for  professionals  seeking  automatic  recognition  of  their 
qualifications on the basis of harmonised minimum training requirements. A card could attest 
that  the  professional's  qualifications  comply  with  the  harmonised  minimum  requirements 
under a modernised Directive. This could be verified by the issuing competent authority at the 
time  of  application  for  a  card  in  the  Member  State  where  the  requisite  evidence  of  formal 
qualifications  was  awarded.  The  authority  in  the  receiving  Member  State  would  no  longer 
have  to  verify  the  qualifications  and  would  thus  be  in  the  position  to  issue  a  recognition 
decision  within  a  significantly  shorter  period  of  time  (e.g.  within  two  weeks  instead  of  the 
three months currently allowed under the Directive)12.  

Even  under  the  general  system,  where  qualifications  are  checked  on  a  case-by-case  basis,  a 
card  could  simplify  and  speed  up the recognition procedure, as initial verification would be 
completed by the authority issuing the card. As a result, the procedures could be shortened to 
a maximum of one month instead of the current maximum of four months13.  

A  professional  card  would  also  offer  benefits  to  service  recipients,  notably  in  terms  of 
transparency.  By  presenting  the  card,  professionals  would  offer  a  guarantee  that  they  are 
competent to exercise the profession. In addition, a system could be set up to allow consumers 
and  employers  to  verify  the  validity  of  the  card  (e.g.  through  direct  contacts  with  the 
competent authority). 

The work of the steering group and pilot case studies 

A  European  professional  card  would  not  be  mandatory.  Interested  mobile  professionals 
should have the possibility, but no obligation, to apply for such a card. The Commission has 
already  set  up  a  Steering  Group  on  the  professional  card  for  selected  parties  who  have 
expressed  an  interest.  It  is  composed  of  representatives  of  different  professions,  competent 
authorities and trade unions. The Group began its work in early January 2011 and is expected 
to put forward concrete conclusions by October of this year. The Group has been considering 
the added value and possible legal effects of such a card. It also studied existing professional 
card  projects,  as  well  as  similar  instruments  that  can  be  useful  in  the  daily  lives  of  citizens 
(such  as  the  European  driving  licence,  the  European  health  insurance  card  or  the  future 
European  Skills  Passport).  The  Group  devoted  major  attention  to  the  challenges  of 
implementation, including the questions of the contents and format of such a card, as well as 
the  best  way  of  ensuring  its  reliability.  The  results  will  be  presented  at  the  Single  Market 
Forum, which will take place on 3-4 October in Cracow, Poland. 

12 

13 

While  the  reinforced  role  of  the  sending  country  may  require  the  engagement  of  administrative 
resources,  such  approach  is likely  to  reduce  the  overall  burden,  as  it  should be  easier for  the sending 
country to verify qualifications in its own country and languages and this should reduce costs incurred 
through the repetition of verification. 
Here again, the sending authority will spend more time verifying the information. However, the overall 
procedure  should  be  shorter,  as  the  sending  authority  is  best  placed  to  do  such  checks  (language 
reasons, check of validity of administrative documents etc.). 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In view of the differing conditions for access to and exercise of each profession, the Steering 
Group  has  considered  it  useful  to  set  up  case  studies  involving  a  number  of  selected 
professions: engineers, doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, and tourist guides. 

Question 1: Do you have any comments on the respective roles of the competent authorities 
in the Member State of departure and the receiving Member State? 

Question  2:  Do  you  agree  that  a  professional  card  could  have  the  following  effects, 
depending on the card holder's objectives? 

a) The card holder moves on a temporary basis (temporary mobility):  

- Option 1: the card would make any declaration which Member States can currently require 
under Article 7 of the Directive redundant. 

- Option 2: the declaration regime is maintained but the card could be presented in place of 
any accompanying documents. 

b) The card holder seeks automatic recognition of his qualifications: presentation of the card 
would  accelerate  the  recognition  procedure  (receiving  Member  State  should  take  a  decision 
within two weeks instead of three months). 

c) The card holder seeks recognition of his qualifications which are not subject to automatic 
recognition  (the  general  system):  presentation  of  the  card  would  accelerate  the  recognition 
procedure (receiving Member State would have to take a decision within one month instead of 
four months). 

2.2. 

Focus on economic activities: the principle of partial access  

Professionals can have difficulties with the recognition of their qualifications if the scope of 
economic activities performed as part of the profession differs between their home Member 
State and the Member State in which they seek establishment. This is the case, for instance, 
for the profession of "snowboard instructor" which exists as a separate profession in certain 
Member States but not in others where snowboarding is taught by ski instructors instead.  

Sometimes the differences in the scope of economic activity covered by a profession in two 
Member States are so large that professionals would have to undergo the full programme of 
education and training in the host Member State, in order to make up for the differences in the 
corresponding qualifications requirements, as in the example above. In considering this issue, 
the Court of Justice developed the principle of partial access14. The Court held that Member 
States must, under certain conditions, allow the partial taking-up of the profession on request 
of  the  professional.  However,  according  to  case  law  of  the  Court,  the  protection  of  the 
recepients of services and consumers in general may justify proportionate restrictions on the 
freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services if such measures are necessary 
and proportionate in order to obtain the objective . 

An  insertion  of  this  principle  into  the  Directive  would  extend  the  safeguards  offered  to 
professionals,  such  as  deadlines  by  which  Member  States  must  issue  recognition  decisions, 
also to professionals who meet the conditions for partial access.  

14 

Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos, Case C- 330/03 of 19 January 2006, European 
Court reports 2006, p. I-801. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
A  modernised  Directive  could  also  confirm  the  criteria  according  to  which  the  principle 
would  apply  ("criteria-based  approach"),  in  line  with  the  jurisprudence.  According  to  the 
Court,  the  partial  access  principle  applies  where  it  is  possible  to  objectively  separate  the 
economic activity which the professional wishes to pursue in the host Member State from the 
rest of the activities covered by a profession in that Member State. One of the decisive criteria 
is  whether  that  economic  activity  may  be  pursued,  independently  or  autonomously,  in  the 
Member  State  where  the  professional  qualification  was  obtained.  For  example,  an  engineer 
specialised in hydraulics in one Member State who wishes to work in a Member State where 
his  activities  are  performed  by  more  broadly  qualified  engineers  who  also  deal  with  roads, 
channels and ports, might be able to gain partial access to the profession in the host Member 
State. He would only be authorised to perform activities relating to hydraulics.  

There  can  be  exceptions  from  the  principle,  if  justified  by  overriding  reasons  of  general 
interest,  suitable  for  securing  the  attainment  of  the  general  interest  objective  and  not  going 
beyond what is necessary in order to attain it.  

Question 3: Do you agree that there would be important advantages to inserting the principle 
of  partial  access  and  specific  criteria  for  its  application  into  the  Directive?  (Please  provide 
specific reasons for any derogation from the principle.) 

2.3. 

Reshaping common platforms 

Today  only  a  limited  number  of  professions  enjoy  the  benefits  of  automatic  recognition. 
Many  professions  under  the  "general  system"  aspire  to  a  similar  mechanism  which  would 
facilitate  their  mobility.  Article  15  of  the  Directive  offers  the  possibility  to  adopt  common 
platforms. The objective of these platforms would be to make compensatory measures (a test 
or an adaptation period) redundant. It is not a tool for automatic recognition of qualifications. 
Therefore, no  common  platform on  compensation measures has been developed to date and 
there  is  broad  consensus  that  there  is  no  foundation  on  which  to  base  further  progress.  The 
current  concept  of  common  platforms  represents  a  failure.  In  the  future,  it  should  become 
broader to open an avenue towards automatic recognition. 

The  Commission  wishes  to  respond  to  the  demand  for  easier  mobility  by  allowing  for 
smoother  recognition.  A  new  approach  to  common  platforms  could  address  this  objective. 
They could operate in much the same way as the system of automatic recognition for doctors, 
dentists,  nurses,  midwives,  pharmacists,  veterinary  surgeons  and  architects,  but  without  the 
need for participation by all Member States, or even as many Member States as are currently 
foreseen under Article 15. The threshold could be lowered to one-third of all Member States 
(i.e. nine out of twenty seven) instead of two-thirds to improve the chances for the creation of 
common  platforms.  It  would  also  be  made  clear  that  any  non-participating  Member  Stats 
would be free to join a common platform at a later stage.  

Any  new  platform  would  be  subject  to  an  internal  market  test.  This  would  ensure  that  the 
agreed conditions are proportionate and that the common platform does not contain excessive 
detail  so  as  to  become  an  obstacle  to  the  mobility  of  professionals  from  non-participating 
Member States who wish to exercise their right to free movement in the Single Market. The 
internal  market  test  could  be  provided  by  the  interested  professional  associations  and  may 
help,  in  particular,  to  clarify  whether  professional  experience  would  enable  a  professional 
coming  from  a  non-participating  Member  State  to  enter  the  profession  in  one  of  the 
participating countries. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
Finally, common platforms would have to be backed not only by professional organisations, 
but  in  a  second  step,  also  by  at  least  nine  Member  States.  On  the  basis  of  a  proposal  of  a 
professional  association  and  with  the  necessary  support  of  a  sufficient  number  of  Member 
States, the Commission could finally be in the position to endorse a common platform through 
a  delegated  act,  the  framework  for  which  could  be  laid  down  in  the  modernised  Directive. 
One  example  of  ongoing  work  on  a  common  platform  is  a  common  platform  for  ski 
instructors. 

Question  4:  Do  you  support  lowering  the  current  threshold  of  two-thirds  of  the  Member 
States  to  one-third  (i.e.  nine  out  of  twenty  seven  Member  States)  as  a  condition  for  the 
creation of a common platform? Do you agree on the need for an Internal Market test (based 
on the proportionality principle) to ensure a common platform does not constitute a barrier for 
service providers from non-participating Member States? (Please give specific arguments for 
or against this approach.)Professional qualifications in regulated professions 

2.4. 

Professional qualifications in regulated professions 

The  Single  Market  Act  provides  for  a  further  assessment  of  reserves  of  activities  linked  to 
professional  qualifications.  It  also  calls  for  a  review  of  the  scope  of  regulated  professions. 
Today,  the  twenty  seven  Member  States  regulate  around  four  thousand  seven  hundred 
professions on the basis of a professional qualification. These professions can be grouped into 
about eight hundred different categories. The Professional Qualifications Directive currently 
offers  a  mutual  recognition  mechanism  working  overall  for  most  of  them.  While  Member 
States  are  free  to  define  qualifications  requirements  for  access  to  certain  professions  as  an 
appropriate tool to achieve public policy objectives in relation to a given economic activity, 
e.g. the need to ensure its security or its safety, in certain cases the qualifications requirements 
may be disproportionate or unnecessary for the achievement of public policy objectives and 
could  lead  to  barriers  to  the  freedom  of  movement  of  EU  citizens.  Indeed,  there  might  be 
cases where an EU citizen who already carries out an economic activity in his or her Member 
State of origin is facing an unjustified and disproportionate qualification requirement in a host 
Member  State  at  such  a  level  or  of  such  a  nature  that  the  individual  would  not  be  in  the 
position  to  overcome  the  difficulties  through  a  test  or  a  stage  (so-called  compensation 
measures)  as  foreseen  in  the  Professional  Qualification  Directive  nor  be  in  the  position  to 
claim partial access according to the Court jurisprudence (see section 2.2 on more information 
on  partial  access).  The  citizen  would,  therefore,  have  no  other  choice  than  to  undergo  the 
entire necessary training to acquire the domestic qualification in that host Member State.  

Question 5: Do you know any regulated professions where EU citizens might effectively face 
such situations? Please explain the profession, the qualifications and for which reasons these 
situations would not be justifiable.  

3. 

BUILDING ON ACHIEVEMENTS  

3.1. 

Access to information and e-government 

Professionals  wishing  to  work  in  another  Member  State  need  to  know  and  understand  the 
rules  applicable  to  them.  The  evaluation  of  the  Directive,  notably  the  public  consultation  in 
early  2011,  has  revealed  this  is  a  major  problem  for  many  stakeholders.  In  particular, 
respondents have signalled insufficient clarity on which authority is in charge of recognising 
their  professional  qualifications  and  which  documents  should  be  submitted.  Insufficient 
information on what to submit, and to which authority, often defeats the objective of getting a 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
quick decision by the host Member State.  

A related challenge concerns the ability of professionals to enjoy a more efficient and more 
convenient  way  to  complete  the  application  for  the  recognition  of  their  professional 
qualifications and receive the recognition decision through e-government sites. 

A  modernised  Directive  could  foresee  that  each  Member  State  make  available  a  central  on 
line  access  point  with  complete  information  on  competent  authorities  and  document 
requirements for the recognition of professional qualifications for all professionals, regardless 
of their profession or the region in which they intend to exercise it. This would address the 
first  challenge.  Knowing  in  advance  exactly  which  documents  need  to  be  submitted  would 
bring  more  transparency  for  professionals  and  would  avoid  situations  in  which  competent 
authorities abstain from a formal decision on the grounds that the migrating professional's file 
is not complete (see Article 51 (2) of the Directive).  

A further step, building on the central access points, could consist in offering to professionals 
the  possibility  of  completing  all  the  procedures  related  to  the  recognition  of  qualifications 
online to meet the second challenge.  

How could this solutions work address the two challenges in practice? The first option would 
be to build on the National Contact Points foreseen under Article 57 of the Directive which 
already  inform  and  assist  professionals  seeking  the  recognition  of  their  qualifications.  At 
present,  their  tasks  primarily  consist  of  offering  advice  by  letter  or  telephone  rather  than 
proactively ensuring access to information for EU citizens interested in professional mobility 
on  the  required  documents  and  the  competent  authority.  In  the  future,  the  National  Contact 
Points  could  also  organise  the  central  access  point  to  information  and  coordinate  with  the 
competent  authorities  the  e-government  facilities  enabling  the  completion  of  all  formalities 
online.  

Another  option  would  be  to  build  on  the  points  of  single  contact  under  the  Services 
Directive15.  These  are  meant  become  fully  fledged  e-government  portals  allowing  service 
providers  to  easily  obtain  online  any  relevant  information  relating  to  their  activities 
(regulations,  procedures,  deadlines).  In  addition,  the  points  of  single  contact  allow  service 
providers to complete electronically all the administrative procedures necessary for the access 
to  and  exercise  of  a  service  activity,  including  the  procedures  for  the  recognition  of 
qualifications,  which  is  key  to  shorten  procedures  and  reduce  the  burden  linked  with 
administrative  formalities.  At  present,  the  points  of  single  contact  are  open  to  service 
providers  (including  their  seconded  staff  and  self-employed  professionals)  covered  by  the 
Services Directive16 but their scope could be extended should the Member State consider this 
to be appropriate to cover all professional activities and not only those to which the Services 
Directive applies. In the same vein, Member States could build on experience with the points 
of single contact by further developing online facilities which would simplify and accelerate 
procedures for the recognition of qualifications for all professionals, while respecting EU data 

15 

16 

Directive  2006/123/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12  December  2006  on 
services in the internal market (OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 36). 
See  the  Commission  staff  working  paper  on  the  transposition  and  implementation  of  the  Directive  - 
SEC(2010) 1292, 22.10.2010, 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/qualifications/docs/evaluation/staff-working-doc_en.pdf . 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
protection law, namely Directive 95/46/EC17.  

Finally,  in  order  to  create  synergies,  it  would  be  important  to  ensure  close  cooperation 
between Member States' e-government facilities and the Your Europe portal which sets out to 
become  a  single  entry  point  for  all  useful  information  on  EU  rights18  and  the  challenges  of 
their implementation.  

Question 6: Would you support an obligation for Member States to ensure that information 
on the competent authorities and the required documents for the recognition of professional 
qualifications is available through a central on line access point in each Member State? Would 
you  support  an  obligation  to  enable  online  completion  of  recognition  procedures  for  all 
professionals? (Please give specific arguments for or against this approach). 

3.2. 

Temporary mobility 

In 2005 a new regime was introduced to facilitate temporary provision of services. Under this 
new regime, there is no obligation for the professional who wishes to provide services on a 
temporary basis whilst maintaining establishment in the home Member State to undergo any 
formal recognition procedures in the host Member State. Member States may only require a 
prior declaration supported by a number of documents to be sent to the competent authority, if 
necessary. A significant number of Member States make extensive use of this option.  

There is a major issue in dealing with situations where a professional from a non-regulating 
Member  State  moves  temporarily  to  a  Member  State  where  the  profession  is  regulated.  In 
such  cases,  the  new  regime  is  open  only  to  those  who  can  prove  two  years  of  professional 
experience  or  provide  evidence  that  they  have  followed  "regulated  education  and  training". 
Some  stakeholders  are  calling  for  more  consumer  choice  which  could  be  achieved  by 
widening  the  scope  of  the  lighter  regime.  Others  are  afraid  of  abuse,  such  as  "forum 
shopping".  The  modernisation  should  strike  the  right  balance  between  these  legitimate 
positions. 

3.2.1.  Consumers crossing borders 

The  two-years  rule  (Article  5(1)  of  the  Directive)  is  generally  accepted,  because  it  protects 
consumers  in  Member  States  where  the  profession  is  regulated.  However,  this  rule  can  be 
disproportionate  in  the  case  of  consumers  travelling  from  their  country  of  origin  to  another 
Member State and where such consumers have not chosen a professional in the Member State 
they  have  travelled  to  but  a  professional  from  Member  State  they  are  coming  from,  for 
example a group of tourists has chosen a tourist guide in the country where they depart from. 
In this case, the professional concerned does not have any contact with local consumers in the 
host  Member  State.  Consequently,  requiring  a  prior  declaration  and  two  years  of  prior 
professional  experience  may  not  be  justified  on  the  grounds  of  consumer  protection.  The 
respect for consumer choice should prevail over fears about "forum shopping", which do not 

17 

18 

Directive  95/46/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  October  1995  on  the 
protection of  individuals  with  regard  to  the  processing of  personal  data and on  the free  movement  of 
such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31). 
The Your Europe portal (europa.eu/youreurope) is developed by the Commission, in partnership with 
the  Member  States.  The  Editorial  Board  of  Your  Europe,  which  is  composed  of  representatives  of 
Member States, must ensure that relevant national-level information is available through Your Europe, 
and that proper links exist between Your Europe and national information portals. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
appear to be relevant in these situations19. A prior declaration requirement would thus appear 
to be unnecessary. Consumer choice would only be limited where public health or consumer 
safety risks already justify a prior check of qualifications (as per Article 7 (4) of the current 
Directive).  

Question 7: Do you agree that the requirement of two years' professional experience in the 
case of a professional coming from a non-regulating Member State should be lifted in case of 
consumers crossing borders and not choosing a local professional in the host Member State? 
Should  the  host  Member  State  still  be  entitled  to  require  a  prior  declaration  in  this  case? 
(Please give specific arguments for or against this approach.) 

3.2.2.  The question of "regulated education and training" 

Professionals who completed "regulated education" are also exempt from the requirement of 
two  years'  professional  experience.  The  Directive  defines  "regulated  education"  rather 
restrictively, as education which involves training specifically geared towards the pursuit of a 
given profession, with reference to specific cases mentioned in Annex III of the Directive.  

However, the world of education is moving and the Directive needs to keep pace with these 
changes. In order to enhance employability in a lifelong learning perspective, education and 
training  policies 
increasingly  aim  at  developing  general  "transferable"  skills  (e.g. 
communication,  management),  in  addition  to  specific  job-related  skills  (technical  skills).  In 
this context, it may not seem justified to limit the notion of regulated education and training to 
those  specifically  geared  to  a  certain  profession  (see  Article  3(i)  (e)  of  the  Directive).  The 
notion  of  regulated  educationcould  be  extended  to  encompass  any  education  and  training 
recognised  by  a  Member  State  and  relevant  to  the  profession.  The  Europass  Diploma 
Supplement20 or the Europass Certificate Supplement21could be used by training institutions 
to give information on the contents and objectives of the relevant programmes. With a revised 
definition  of  regulated  education  and  training,  suitably  educated  professionals  could  benefit 
from  the  lighter  temporary  mobility  regime  in  larger  numbers.  At  the  same  time,  Member 
States would be entitled to continue requiring an annual prior declaration under a modernised 
Directive (except in cases where the professional card makes this redundant). 

Question  8:  Do  you  agree  that  the  notion  of  "regulated  education  and  training"  could 
encompass  all  training recognised  by  a  Member  State  which  is  relevant  to  a  profession  and 
not  only  the  training  which  is  explicitly  geared  towards  a  specific  profession?  (Please  give 
specific arguments for or against this approach.) 

19 
20 

21 

the 

outside 

especially 

Ideally these professionals would be equipped with a European professional card. 
The  Europass  Diploma  Supplement  is  issued  to  graduates  of  higher  education  institutions  along  with 
their  degree  or  diploma.  It  helps  to  ensure  that  higher  education  qualifications  are  more  easily 
understood, 
see 
http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/europass/home/vernav/InformationOn/EuropassDiplomaSupplement.
csp;jsessionid=43770C133C7D2B78EA4522BF5ABFF581.wpc1 
The  Europass  Certificate  Supplement  is  delivered  to  people  who  hold  a  vocational  education  and 
training  certificate;  it  adds  information  to  that  which  is  already  included  in  the  official  certificate, 
making it more easily understood, especially by employers or institutions outside the issuing country. 
For more information see   
http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/europass/home/vernav/InformationOn/EuropassCertificateSupplemen
t.csp;jsessionid=43770C133C7D2B78EA4522BF5ABFF581.wpc1 

country  where 

they  were 

awarded. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.3. 

Opening up the general system 

3.3.1.  Levels of qualification 

Article 11 of the Directive stipulates five levels of qualification which are based on the type 
and  duration  of  training.  When  a  professional  applies  for  the  recognition  of  his  or  her 
qualifications  for  a  profession  under  the  general  system,  the  competent  authority  must  use 
these levels in order to determine if the applicant can benefit from the Directive. If there is a 
difference  of  two  or  more  levels  between  the  qualification  of  the  professional  and  the 
qualification required in the host Member State, the Directive does not currently apply.  

The  levels  defined  in  Article  11  might  overlap  with  the  eight  levels  of  the  European 
Qualifications  Framework  (EQF)  which  is  based  on  "learning  outcomes",  once  the  latter  is 
implemented  in  201222.  The  coexistence  of  two  classification  systems  creates  a  risk  of 
confusion  for  competent  authorities  and  other  stakeholders.  A  study  commissioned  by  DG 
Internal  Market  and  Services  is  also  currently  assessing  the  benefits  and  limits  of  these 
different systems of classification for the purpose of recognition. The results of this study will 
be available in the autumn. 

A  possible  way  forward  could  be  to  avoid  any  classification  of  qualifications  that  excludes 
certain professionals from the scope of the Directive. A possible solution could be to delete 
the levels of qualifications in Article 11 (as well as Annex II which is linked to Article 11). 
This would mean that competent authorities would no longer determine the eligibility of an 
applicant  according  to  pre-defined  levels  of  qualifications  but  would  focus  on  the 
identification of substantial differences in training to decide whether compensation measures 
are  necessary.  As  a  consequence,  competent  authorities  could  no  longer  refuse  applications 
for recognition on the grounds of a difference in the level of qualifications, such as between a 
university  diploma  and  secondary  education.  Neither  could  they  exclude  professionals  from 
recognition  of  qualifications  on  the  basis  of  professional  experience  attested  by  a  Member 
State  (as  currently  provided  for  in  Article  11  (a)  of  the  Directive).  Deletion  of  such 
classifications would also give more discretion to Member States.  

Question  9:  Would  you  support  the  deletion  of  the  classification  outlined  in  Article  11 
(including Annex II)? (Please give specific arguments for or against this approach). 

3.3.2.  Compensation measures 

Deleting  Article  11  carries  the  risk  of  more  compensation  measures.  Should  Article  11  be 
deleted, a possible option could be to recalibrate the system of compensation measures in four 
steps:  

1) Article 14 (1) of the Directive defines the conditions according to which the host Member 
State can impose compensation measures. One of these conditions relates to the duration of 
training.  A  difference  in  the  duration  of  training  of  at  least  one  year  in  itself  is  currently  a 
justification  for  compensation  measures.  It  is  questionable  whether  Article  14  (1)  a  of  the 
Directive is still justified. 
2)  Article  13(2)  of  the  Directive  requires  professionals  to  have  at  least  two  years  of 
professional  experience  if  their  profession  is  not  regulated  in  their  home  Member  State.  If 

22 

The "experience reports" and the reactions to the public consultation suggest that the application of the 
system on the basis of these predefined levels is seen as overly complex. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
they do not fulfil this requirement, they cannot currently  benefit  from the "general system". 
There  is  no  reason  why  professionals  with  less  professional  experience  should  be  excluded. 
The  host  Member  State  would  need  in  any  event  to  assess  their  existing  qualifications, 
including  their  professional  experience.  If  the  qualifications  are  substantially  different  from 
the  nationally  applicable  requirements,  the  host  Member  State  could  impose  appropriate 
compensation measures. Article 13 (2) of the Directive would be deleted accordingly. 
3)  The  Commission  has  received  a  lot  of  complaints  from  citizens  against  competent 
authorities imposing disproportionate compensation measures. If a modernised Directive does 
no  longer  contain  a  classification,a  new  safeguard  could  be  introduced  in  the  modernised 
Directive to protect EU citizens against arbitrary compensation measures. When imposing a 
compensation  measure  on  an  applicant,  the  competent  authority  in  the  host  Member  State 
could explicitly justify its decision with regards to: 

a) the substantial differences between the training of the applicant and the training required in 
the  host  Member  State  (specifically,  which  elements  of  the  training  required  in  the  host 
Member  State  are  insufficiently  covered  by  the  training  of  the  applicant  and  why  they  are 
considered as "substantial differences") 

b) why these substantial differences prevent the professional to exercise his profession in the 
host Member State.  

4)  Finally,  in  order  to  facilitate  the  implementation  of  compensation  measures,  essential 
provisions  of  the  Code  of  Conduct  for  national  administrative  practices  falling  under  the 
Directive23 (such as the requirement for competent authorities to offer aptitude tests at least 
twice  a  year)  could  be  made  mandatory.  However,  for  the  remaining  parts,  the  Code  of 
Conduct should not become mandatory. 
Question 10: If Article 11 of the Directive is deleted, should the four steps outlined above be 
implemented in a modernised Directive? If you do not support the implementation of all four 
steps, would any of them be acceptable to you? (Please give specific arguments for or against 
all or each of the steps.) 

3.3.3.  Partially qualified professionals 

The Directive facilitates mobility of fully qualified professionals. It currently does not apply 
to people who have finished their studies, but are not yet fully qualified for the independent 
pursuit  of  their  profession.  However,  more  and  more  people  wish  and  should  be  able  to 
benefit from the internal market by completing a remunerated supervised practice abroad. The 
Court of Justice clarified in the Morgenbesser case24 that the Treaty rules on free movement 
apply to such cases and that Member States cannot, as a matter of principle, prevent people 
from  doing  a  remunerated  supervised  practice  if  they  offer  the  possibility  to  their  own 
nationals. Member States must compare the qualifications of the applicant to those required 
nationally with the view to assessing whether they are, if not identical, at least equivalent.  

In  line  with  the  Morgenbesser  jurisprudence,  two  principles  could  be  confirmed  in  a 
modernised  Directive:  The  procedural  safeguards  of  the  Directive  could  be  extended  to 
graduates from academic training who wishes to complete a period of remunerated supervised 
practical experience in the profession abroad, provided that supervised practice is offered to 

23 
24 

See: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/qualifications/docs/future/cocon_en.pdf. 
Court  of  Justice  13  November  2003,  Case  C-313/01,  Morgenbesser,  ECR  I–13467.  (This  judgement 
was  confirmed  by  the  Court's  judgement  in  Case  C-345/08,  Peśla  v.  Justizministerium  Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern.) 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
nationals of the host Member State. This concerns, in particular, the deadlines applicable to 
competent authorities for taking a decision, but also the obligation to acknowledge receipt of 
the application within a certain timeframe and inform the applicant of any document missing 
from  their  file.  At  the  same  time,  the  Directive  could  make  clear  that  the  country  of  origin 
cannot refuse, as a matter of principle, to recognise a traineeship on the sole grounds that it 
was conducted abroad. The procedural safeguards of the Directive could apply in this context 
too. 

Question  11:  Would  you  support  extending  the  benefits  of  the  Directive  to  graduates  from 
academic  training  who  wish  to  complete  a  period  of  remunerated  supervised  practical 
experience  in  the  profession  abroad?  (Please  give  specific  arguments  for  or  against  this 
approach.) 

3.4. 

Exploiting the potential of IMI 

3.4.1.  Mandatory use of IMI for all professions 

Cooperation  between  Member  States  via  IMI  is  already  daily  practice.  However,  it  is  not 
mandatory for the competent authorities for professionals whose activities are excluded from 
the  Services  Directive.  Feedback  received  from  the  competent  authorities  in  the  experience 
reports in 2010 and the public consultation showed broad support for a mandatory use of the 
system, beyond the professions covered by the Services Directive. A possible way forward in 
the context of the modernisation of the Directive could be to ensure all competent authorities 
respond via IMI to queries from their counterparts in other Member States25.  

3.4.2.  Alert mechanism for health professions 

More  importantly,  a  more  proactive  form  of  cooperation  could  be  introduced:  An  alert 
mechanism  already  exists  for  the  professions  covered  by  the  Services  Directive  allowing 
competent authorities to inform each other, under certain conditions, of any service activities 
that might cause serious damage to the health or safety of persons or the environment. As a 
consequence,  the  activities  of  a  craftsman  currently  fall  under  this  alert  mechanism  but  not 
those of health professionals who are outside the scope of the Services Directive.  

Which solution is best suited for health professionals? The first option would be to apply the 
same  alert  mechanism  which  applies  to  professions  covered  by  the  Services  Directive  to 
health  professionals:  an  alert  would  thus  be  limited  to  circumstances  where  there  is  clear 
evidence that a health professional is migrating to another Member State though he has been 
subject to sanctions barring him from exercising his profession in the Member State of origin. 
The alert would be limited to the specific Member States where there is sufficient likelihood 
of risks or damage occurring, which means considering any factors that might indicate that the 
professional  is  likely  to  be  active  in  other  Member  States.  Another  option  which  would 
protect patients in a much more effective way would be to introduce an obligation to launch 
an alert to all Member States once a migrating health professional loses his right to practise 
due to sanctions in a Member State. Any measure taken in this respect should be in line with 

25 

To  the  extent  this  cooperation  entails  the  processing  of  personal  data,  it  is  necessary  to  comply  with 
relevant EU law, as outlined by article 56.2 of the Professional Qualifications Directive, with reference 
in particular to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 
on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement 
of such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31). 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the Charter of Fundamental Rights in particular with the protection of personal data and the 
right to an effective remedy. 

Question 12: Which of the two options for the introduction of an alert mechanism for health 
professionals within the IMI system do you prefer? 

Option  1:  Extending  the  alert  mechanism  as  foreseen  under  the  Services  Directive  to  all 
professionals,  including  health  professionals?  The  initiating  Member  State  would  decide  to 
which other Member States the alert should be addressed.) 

Option  2:  Introducing  the  wider  and  more  rigorous  alert  obligation  for  Member  States  to 
immediately  alert  all  other  Member  States  if  a  health  professional  is  no  longer  allowed  to 
practise  due  to  a  disciplinary  sanction?  The  initiating  Member  State  would  be  obliged  to 
address each alert to all other Member States.) 

3.5. 

Language requirements  

Under Article 53 of the Directive, professionals must have the language knowledge necessary 
to perform their activities in the host Member State. In this context, Member States must take 
due  account  of  the  principle  of  proportionality  which  excludes  systematic  language  tests. 
Testing the language knowledge of EU citizens interested in professional mobility on a case-
by-case basis may be a legitimate way of safeguarding the interests of consumers and patients. 
However,  systematic  language  testing  can  become  a  means  of  unfairly  preventing  foreign 
professionals  from  accessing  the  right  to  perform  a  professional  activity,  if  applied 
disproportionately. The main responsibility to ensure that all necessary professional language 
skills are acquired lies with the employers. 

A  public  debate  on  language  requirements  for  health  professionals  is  ongoing  in  a  few 
Member  States.  The  issue  of  language  skills  of  health  professionals  is  gaining  more 
importance  as  migration  of  health  professionals  increases,  and  it  is  particularly  acute  in  the 
case  of  health  professionals  benefiting  from  automatic  recognition  who  come  into  direct 
contact with patients. Should they be subject to language tests? If so, at which point?  

- One option would be to clarify the Code of Conduct26, which would be more conducive to 
future adaptations.  

-  Another  option  would  be  to  introduce  into  the  Directive  a  rule  specifically  applicable  to 
health  professionals  with  direct  contact  with  patients.  This  provision  would  allow  a  one-off 
control of the necessary language skills before the health professional first comes into direct 
contact with patients.  

Question 13: Which of the two options outlines above do you prefer? 

Option 1: Clarifying the existing rules in the Code of Conduct; 

26 

Currently,  Member  States  can  control  that  professionals  have  the  language  knowledge  necessary  for 
performing  their  activities,  but  they  must  do  it  in  a  proportionate  way.  This  means  that  they  cannot 
subject  systematically  foreign  professionals  to  language  tests.  Professionals  should  be  able  to  prove 
their language knowledge by other means (e.g. diploma acquired in the relevant language, professional 
experience  in  the  country,  language  certificate  etc.).  This  means  also  that  the  level  of  language 
knowledge  required  varies  according  to  the  type  of  activity  and  the  framework  in  which  it  will  be 
conducted. Also the language control can only take place after the end of the recognition procedure and 
cannot be a reason for refusing recognition of professional qualifications as such.  

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Option  2:  Amending  the  Directive  itself  with  regard  to  health  professionals  having  direct 
contact with patients and benefiting from automatic recognition. 

4. 

MODERNISING AUTOMATIC RECOGNITION  

4.1. 

A three-phase approach to modernisation  

The  Professional  Qualifications  Directive  provides  for  a  set  of  harmonised  minimum 
conditions  for  the  training  of  doctors,  dentists,  general  care  nurses,  midwives,  pharmacists, 
veterinary surgeons and architects. These minimum training requirements have been the basis 
for  automatic  recognition  for  many  years.  The  system  of  automatic  recognition  for  these 
professions is widely seen as a success. However, some of the training conditions themselves 
date as far back as thirty years and many stakeholders call for the Directive to be modernised. 
A  modernised  Directive  should  retain  the  basic  principles  of  automatic  recognition  as  a 
starting point, with a flexible mechanism for updating the specific training requirements. This 
mechanism  could  then  be  used  to  gradually  build  the  ongoing  educational  reforms  into  the 
automatic recognition regime. At the same time, the modernisation needs to take into account 
continuing  scientific  and  technical  progress.  Therefore,  modernisation  could  be  achieved  in 
three phases:  

In the first phase, the Directive itself could be amended to clarify and adapt the foundations 
of the training requirements, such as clarifying minimum training periods and strengthening 
the  measures  which  underpin  the  quality  of  the  services  offered  by  professionals. 
Furthermore,  it  is  necessary  to  change  the  institutional  framework  to  replace  the  current 
comitology system by either implementing acts or delegated acts27, in line with the Treaty on 
the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  The  Council  of  Ministers  and  the  European 
Parliament would – ideally - decide on these changes, upon a proposal of the Commission to 
be presented before the end of 2011. The Single Market Act of 13 April suggests that political 
agreement on this phase be achieved by the end of 2012.  

In  the  second  phase,  the  framework  of  newly  introduced  implementing  or  delegated  acts 
would be used to update the existing training subjects for all professions concerned but also to 
develop  sets  of  competences,  where  necessary.  (In  this  regard,  it  should  be  noted  that  the 
Commission is already empowered to act under the existing comitology procedure.) Changes 
in  these  areas  would  require  upstream  involvement  from  competent  authorities  which  have 
already  started  networking  to  build  expertise  and  successfully  assisted  the  Commission  in 
evaluating  the  current  Directive  in  2010.  This  second  phase  would  commence  in  2013  and 
could be completed in 2014.  

Finally,  in  the  third  phase,  the  harmonisation  of  minimum  training  requirements  could  be 
further optimised, if necessary, for example by moving from a system of training hours to the 
use  of  the  European  Credit  Transfer  and  Accumulation  System  (ECTS)28  across  Member 
States in order to facilitate automatic recognition in the future. An ongoing external study on 
the impact of educational reforms29 will assess the potential merits of using ECTS points in 
this area. Depending on the outcome of the study, a mechanism could be envisaged to clarify 
the  minimum  number  of  years  specified  in  a  modernised  Directive  in  terms  of  equivalent 

27 
28 
29 

See Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty.  
For more information see http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc48_en.htm. 
The study carried out by GBP will be published in October. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
number of ECTS points. However, this would require further efforts and engagement on the 
part of the universities and the professionals. The first assessments could start in 2014. 

Question  14:  Would  you  support  a  three-phase  approach  to  modernisation  of  the  minimum 
training requirements under the Directive consisting of the following phases:  

-  the  first  phase  to  review  the  foundations,  notably  the  minimum  training  periods,  and 
preparing the institutional framework for further adaptations, as part of the modernisation of 
the Directive in 2011-2012; 

-  the  second  phase  (2013-2014)  to  build  on  the  reviewed  foundations,  including,  where 
necessary, the revision of training subjects and initial work on adding competences using the 
new institutional framework; and 

- the third phase (post-2014) to address the issue of ECTS credits using the new institutional 
framework?  

4.2. 

Increasing confidence in automatic recognition 

In  their  experience  reports,  many  competent  authorities  called  for  a  strengthening  of  the 
system  of  automatic  recognition.  Some  of  them  argue  that  more  harmonisation  of  the 
minimum training periods in the Directive, for example by introducing a number of training 
hours or clarifying whether both years and training hours should apply, is necessary. Another 
way forward would be to consider which body or authority at national level could take more 
responsibility in ensuring that the contents of the training leading to a given professional title 
fulfil the requirements of the Directive at all times. 

4.2.1.  Clarifying the status of professionals 

The  Professional  Qualifications  Directive  provides  for  a  set  of  harmonised  minimum 
conditions  for  the  training  of  doctors,  dentists,  general  care  nurses,  midwives,  pharmacists, 
veterinary  surgeons  and  architects.  These  minimum  training  requirements  are  currently  the 
sole  basis  for  automatic  recognition  of  the  qualifications  of  these  professionals.  Diplomas 
attesting  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  minimum  training  requirements  are  sufficient  for  their 
holders to become established in a Member State other than that in which their qualifications 
were  obtained.  However,  situations  may  arise  in  which  diploma  holders  lose  their  right  to 
exercise  the  profession  for  which  they  were  qualified  in  their  home  Member  State  (for 
instance because they failed to comply with national requirements on continuous professional 
development).  

There  is  currently  a  gap  in  the  Directive.  In  the  case  of  temporary  provision  of  services, 
professionals  are  obliged  to  demonstrate  that  they  have  the  right  to  exercise  in  their  home 
Member State and are not prohibited from exercising the profession, for instance because they 
did not fulfil domestic requirements related to continuing professional development. There is 
no explicit provision for a similar requirement in the case of establishment. It could be logical 
to  extend  this  requirement  to  cases  where  a  professional  wishes  to  establish  himself  on  a 
permanent basis in another Member State. This should for instance prevent doctors who are 
no longer authorised to practice in one Member State from migrating to another. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
Question  15:  Once  professionals  seek  establishment  in  a  Member  State  other  than  that  in 
which  they  acquired  their  qualifications,  they  should  demonstrate  to  the  host  Member  State 
that they have the right to exercise their profession in the home Member State. This principle 
applies in the case of temporary mobility. Should it be extended to cases where a professional 
wishes  to  establish  himself?  (Please  give  specific  arguments  for  or  against  this  approach.)Is 
there a need for the Directive to address the question of continuing professional development 
more extensively? 

4.2.2.  Clarifying minimum training periods for doctors, nurses and midwives 

At  present,  for  some  sectoral  professions,  the  minimum  duration  of  training  is  expressed  in 
terms  of  years  or  training  hours.  This  can  give  rise  to  misunderstanding  whether  the  two 
criteria  constitute  two  options  or  if  they  should  be  applied  together.  Many  stakeholders 
suggest  combining  the  two  criteria.  A  modernised  Directive  could  clarify  this  for  doctors, 
nurses  and  midwives  for  which  the  two  conditions  are  already  established  but  presented  as 
options.  

Question 16: Would you support clarifying the minimum training requirements for doctors, 
nurses and midwives to state that the conditions relating to the minimum years of training and 
the  minimum  hours  of  training  apply  cumulatively?  (Please  give  specific  arguments  for  or 
against this approach.) 

4.2.3.  Ensuring better compliance at national level 

Automatic  recognition  for  the  professions  for  whom  minimum  training  requirements  have 
been  harmonised,  is  granted  on  the  basis  of  professional  titles  awarded  to  members  of  the 
professions,  following  the  fulfilment  of  the  minimum  training  contents  prescribed  by  the 
Directive.  However,  training  contents  evolve  over  time.  In  addition,  many  universities  have 
been implementing reforms under the Bologna process30, which is leading to many changes, 
such  as  moving  towards  student-centred  learning.  This  raises  the  question  of  how  Member 
States can, in the future, ensure that universities and other educational establishments follow 
the framework set by the Directive in the light of continuing reforms.  

Another challenge relates to Member States notifying the Commission of new developments, 
notably  new  professional  titles  awarded  in  the  Member  State.  In  practice,  such  information 
often  arrives  only  once  the  graduates  concerned  leave  the  universities  with  their  diplomas, 
which limits the ability for some of the graduates to benefit from automatic recognition or at 
least creates great uncertainty about free movement. 

In order to address these two issues, a modernised Directive could contain the requirement for 
Member  States  to  notify  new  changes  to  diplomas  as  soon  as  they  are  accredited  by  an 
accreditation  institution  or  approved  by  other  public  bodies,  thus  well  before  students 
graduate with the notified diplomas. The designated bodies (which would not necessarily need 
to  be  newly  created)  would  assume  a  national  compliance  function  ensuring  that  the 
harmonised  minimum  training  requirements  under  the  Directive  are  respected;  a  relevant 
report  from  the  body  performing  the  national  compliance  function  could  accompany  any 

30 

The  Bologna  Process  was  launched  in  1999  in  order  to  ensure  more  comparable,  compatible  and 
coherent systems of higher education in Europe. For more information see http://www.ehea.info/. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
notifications. These changes would not only enable young graduates to have more confidence 
that  they  can  benefit  from  automatic  recognition  but  also  enhance  trust  between  Member 
States.  

Question 17: Do you agree that Member States should make notifications as soon as a new 
program of education and training is approved? Would you support an obligation for Member 
States  to  submit  a  report  to  the  Commission  on  the  compliance  of  each  programme  of 
education and training leading to the acquisition of a title notified to the Commission with the 
Directive? Should Member States designate a national compliance function for this purpose? 
(Please give specific arguments for or against this approach.) 

4.3. 

Doctors: Medical Specialists 

The  Commission  received  numerous  comments  on  specialist  training,  primarily  centring  on 
two issues. First, automatic recognition can currently only be extended to new specialities, if 
the speciality exists in at least two fifths of the Member States. This threshold could create a 
disincentive for innovation and limit the opportunities for inserting new medical specialities 
into  the  Directive.  It  could  be  appropriate  to  lower  the  threshold  of  the  number  of  Member 
States required from two fifths to one third. In this way, the threshold for the insertion of new 
specialities  into  the  Directive  would  correspond  to  the  threshold  proposed  for  common 
platforms (see section 2.3).  

Question  18:  Do  you  agree  that  the  threshold  of  the  minimum  number  of  Member  States 
where  the  medical  speciality  exists  should  be  lowered  from  two-fifths  to  one-third?  (Please 
give specific arguments for or against this approach.) 

The  second  issue  concerns  the  general  framework  for  organising  specialist  training.  The 
Directive  leaves  little  room  for  recognition  of  prior  learning  as  part  of  training  on  courses 
which  are  of  at  least  an  equivalent  level  to  the  training  for  a  given  speciality.  This  is  of 
particular  relevance  to  specialities  which  have  grown  out  of  internal  medicine  or  general 
surgery31.  If  a  doctor  has  followed  a  specialist  training  and  afterwards  follows  another 
specialist training, he or she would, in principle, have to follow the full training programme 
for the second speciality, from the very start. The modernisation of the Directive could be an 
opportunity to give Member States the possibility of granting partial exemptions from parts of 
specialist  training,  if  that  part  of  the  training  has  been  followed  already  in  the  context  of 
another specialist training programme. 

Question 19: Do you agree that the modernisation of the Directive could be an opportunity 
for  Member  States  for  granting  partial  exemptions  if  part  of  the  training  has  been  already 
completed  in  the  context  of  another  specialist  training  programme?  If  yes,  are  there  any 
conditions that should be fulfilled in order to benefit from a partial exemption? (Please give 
specific arguments for or against this approach.) 

31 

As  regards  internal  medicine,  this  concerns  the  following  11  specialties:  immunology,  rheumatology, 
respiratory  medicine,  gastroenterology,  cardiology,  endocrinology,  geriatrics,  renal  diseases,  general 
haematology, communicable diseases and clinical oncology. Closely linked to general surgery could be 
seen the following 11 specialties: Plastic surgery, thoracic surgery, paediatric surgery, vascular surgery, 
gastroenterological  surgery,  neurological  surgery,  orthopaedics,  maxillo-facial  surgery,  stomatology, 
dental, oral and maxillo-facial surgery and urology. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.4. 

Nurses and midwives 

The  admission  requirement  for  nurse  training  is  currently  minimum  ten  years  of  general 
education  (the  same  requirement  applies  to  midwifery  training  under  the  so-called  route  I 
training  (Article  40  (2)  a).  However,  the  nursing  profession  has  significantly  evolved  in  the 
last three decades: community-based healthcare, the use of complex therapies and constantly 
developing  technology  presuppose  the  capacity  for  more  independent  work  by  nurses.  In 
several  Member  States,  as  a  result  of  the  shortage  of  doctors,  nurses  and  midwives  are 
expected  to  perform  tasks  which  were  previously  undertaken  only  by  doctors.  There  is  a 
concern  that  students  who  enter  nursing  school  after  only  ten  years  of  general  school 
education  do  not  have  the  necessary  basic  skills  and  knowledge  to  start  a  training  which 
should  prepare  them  to  meet  complex  healthcare  needs.  One  option  would  therefore  be  to 
require  that  Member  States  only  allow  admission  to  nursing  training  course  for  candidates 
who have completed minimum twelve years of general education (as the same should apply to 
'route  1'  midwifery  training).  This  requirement  exists  already  in  many  Member  States.  The 
other option would be to maintain the status quo. 

Question 20: Which of the options outlined above do you prefer? 

Option 1: Maintaining the requirement of ten years of general school education  

Option 2: Increasing the requirement of ten years to twelve years of general school education 

4.5. 

Pharmacists 

The traditional role of pharmacists is changing from mere supply of medicine to a more direct 
involvement  with  the  patient,  including  counselling,  providing  information  and  even 
reviewing, monitoring and adapting the treatment when needed. The community pharmacy is 
becoming more important. Several interested parties suggest expanding the list of professional 
activities  a  pharmacist  is  authorised  to  perform  in  the  Member  States,  provided  in  Article 
45(2)  of  the  Directive,  to  reflect  these  changes.  Interested  parties  most  often  request  the 
inclusion of "pharmaceutical care", "community pharmacy" and "pharmacovigilance" as new 
professional activities. In addition, many stakeholders propose that that the Directive (current 
Article 44(2)(b)) provide for a mandatory period of practical training of six months, directly 
after completing academic training, to prepare future pharmacists for their role. 

Another  question  is  whether  Member  States  should  be  entitled  to  ban  fully  qualified 
pharmacists,  who  obtained  their  qualifications  in  another  Member  State,  from  opening  new 
pharmacies. Article 21 (4) of the Directive currently allows Member States not to give effect 
to automatic recognition of a pharmacist’s qualifications for the setting up or management of 
new pharmacies, including those which have been open for less than three years. This result is 
at  odds  with  the  general  principle  of  automatic  recognition  and  represents  a  discrimination 
against  EU  pharmacists.  Discrimination  against  EU  citizens  from  other  Member  States  is 
incompatible  with  the  Single  Market.  Ireland  has  already  given  up  the  application  of  this 
derogation and the UK intends to abandon it by this summer. With the view to promoting free 
movement of pharmacists and giving full effect to the principle of automatic recognition it is 
proposed that this provision could be deleted. In any event, Article 61 of the Directive already 
allows for derogations if there is a genuine need.  

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
Question  21:  Do  you  agree  that  the  list  of  pharmacists’  activities  should  be  expanded?  Do 
you support the suggestion to add the requirement of six months training, as outlined above? 
Do you support the deletion of Article 21(4) of the Directive? (Please give specific arguments 
for or against this approach.) 

4.6. 

Architects  

In many Member States, universities offer at least five-year curricula in architectural studies. 
The Directive does not present any obstacles to this trend: the training requirements of four 
years  academic  training  for  architects,  defined  in  Article  46  of  the  Directive,  are  only  the 
minimum,  allowing  Member  States  and  universities  to  apply  higher  standards  in  educating 
future architects. Nonetheless, the professional organisations representing architects, suggest 
that the minimum duration of training under the Directive could be increased from four to five 
years to reflect the evolution of the profession.  

The proposal to harmonise the five-year requirement at EU level raises challenging questions. 
Firstly,  the  Commission  is  not  in  the  position  to  confirm  which  of  the  diplomas  already 
published in the Directive on the basis of their compliance with its current provisions attest to 
training of five years. As a result, harmonising the minimum duration of training at five years 
would necessitate an acquired rights regime for architects whose training started (or will have 
started) before the entry into force of a modernised Directive in 2012 or 2013, in addition to 
the already existing acquired rights regime for architects trained before the entry into force of 
the  first  Directive  on  architects  in  1985  (see  Article  49  of  Directive  2005/36/EC  in 
conjunction with Annex VI). 

Secondly,  this  solution  would  significantly  limit  flexibility  without  addressing  another 
genuine problem related to mobility: how to take account of supervised professional practice, 
an aspect of architectural education which is already recognised in many Member States as an 
important feature of training architects?  

Against this background, there appear to be two options:  

The first option would be to retain the existing requirement of four years;  

The second option would be to bring the Directive's provisions closer to the existing situation 
in most Member States, whilst allowing for a degree of flexibility for each of them: in order to 
benefit from automatic recognition, architects would have to attest to either at least five years 
of academic training followed by a minimum of one year of supervised practical experience 
or  a  minimum  of  four  years  of  academic  training  with  a  minimum  two  years  of  supervised 
practical  experience.  As  a  consequence,  it  would  take  a  minimum  of  six  years  to  become  a 
fully  qualified  architect  in  the  European  Union  and  this  would  always  include  supervised 
practice.  

Question 22: Which of the two options outlined above do you prefer? 

Option 1: Maintaining the current requirement of at least four years academic training? 

Option 2: Complementing the current requirement of a minimum four-year academic training 
by  a  requirement  of  two  years  of  professional  practice.  As  an  alternative  option,  architects 
would  also  qualify  for  automatic  recognition  after  completing  a  five-year  academic 
programme, complemented by at least one year of professional practice.  

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
4.7. 

Automatic recognition in the areas of craft, trade and industry  

In  the  areas  of  craft,  trade  and  industry,  automatic  recognition  is  contingent  on  two 
conditions: (1) a certain number of years of experience, which varies according to the activity; 
and (2) a clear identification of the professional activity, based on Annex IV of the Directive. 
Concerning  the  first  condition,  the  evaluation  has  shown  that  there  are  no  reasons  for 
changing  the  minimum  number  of  years  of  experience  required.  Concerning  the  second 
condition, there is a strong body of opinion that Annex IV in its current form does not always 
allow for clear identification of a profession based on the activities listed therein. At present, 
Annex IV refers to International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities 
(ISIC)32
 though not in its most recent version, sometimes dating back to the 1950s and 1960s.  

One option would be to take as a basis the same ISIC classification but in its most recently 
revised  form  of  2008  which  now  includes  a  more  precisely  defined  list  of  activities.  With 
rapid  technological  advances,  defining  and  updating  qualifications  and  corresponding 
professions is important. Various stakeholders have also proposed as alternative solutions the 
EU  common  procurement  vocabulary33,  which  is  updated  on  a  regular  basis,  and  the 
International  Standard  Classification  of  Occupations  (ISCO)  nomenclature34,  as  revised  in 
2008. 

Whilst  a  modernised  Directive  should  retain  the  principle  of  automatic  recognition  for  the 
professions  in  the  areas  of  craft,  trade  and  industry,  the  classification  of  the  activities 
themselves could be carried out at a later stage, drawing on the results of the study.  

Question 23: Which of the following options do you prefer?  

Option 1: Immediate modernisation through replacing the ISIC classification of 1958 by the 
ISIC classification of 2008?  

Option 2: Immediate modernisation through replacing Annex IV by the common vocabulary 
used in the area of public procurement?  

Option 3: Immediate modernisation through replacing Annex IV by the ISCO nomenclature 
as last revised by 2008?  

Option 4: Modernisation in two phases: confirming in a modernised Directive that automatic 
recognition continues to apply for activities related to crafts, trade and industry activities. The 
related activities continue to be as set out in Annex IV until 2014, date by which a new list of 
activities  should  be  established  by  a  delegated  act.  The  list  of  activities  should  be  based  on 
one of the classifications presented under options 1, 2 or 3.  

32 

33 

34 

Nomenclature adopted by the United Nations in 1948 and revised in 1958, 1968, 1989 and 2006 (the 
latest revision was published in 2008). 
See Regulation (EC) No 2195/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 
on the Common Procurement Vocabulary (CPV) (OJ L 340, 16.12.2002, p.1) as most recently modified 
in 2009. Available at: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2002:340:0001:0001:EN:PDF 
Adopted by the International labour Organisation (ILO) and available at: 
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/index.htm 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
4.8. 

Third country qualifications 

The  Professional  Qualifications  Directive,  in  essence,  applies  to  EU  citizens  holding 
qualifications  acquired  in  an  EU  Member  State.  However,  it  also  helps  EU  citizens  holding 
qualifications acquired outside the European Union  (for  instance  a  diploma  from  Canada  or 
China): 

The Directive applies to EU citizens who initially acquired qualifications in a third country, if 
such  qualification  has  already  been  recognised  in  a  Member  State  and  the  EU  citizen 
concerned  has  also  acquired  three  years  of  professional  experience  in  the  above  Member 
State. Article 3 (3)) facilitates free movement: of such an EU citizen once he or she moves to 
another  Member  State.  The  EU  citizen  can  therefore  benefit  from  all  the  procedural 
safeguards  under  the  so-called  general  system  (such  as  a  rapid  and  substantiated  decision 
whether  the  qualification  can  be  recognised).  In  brief,  three  years'  lawful  and  effective 
professional experience in a Member State allows for a treatment of the initial third-country 
qualification as if it had been acquired in a Member State. 

However,  the  Directive  also  contains  safeguards  to  guarantee  the  minimum  training 
requirements which are already harmonised at European level (for certain health professions 
and architects). According to Article 2 (2) of the Directive, Member States should not accept 
third country qualifications from EU citizens if the level of the qualification does not meet the 
minimum requirements specified for qualifications acquired in the EU. Member States should 
also avoid triggering a brain drain of skilled workforce from non-EUcountries35. 

The main question is whether the overall shortage of skilled workforce calls for an adjustment 
of  the  above  provisions.  Such  adjustment  would  in  the  first  instance  benefit  EU  citizens. 
However,  it  could  also  have  an  impact  on  certain  third  country  nationals  who  enjoy  rights 
under  European  legislation:  family  members  of  EU  citizens36,  long  term  residents37, 
refugees38, and “blue card” holders39 are treated in the same way as EU citizens with respect 
to recognition of professional qualifications (although the relevant legislative instruments do 
not  bind  all  Member  States  of  the  European  Union).  This  adjustment  would  underpin  the 
policy of the European Union to also enhance mobility in the context of the revised European 
Neighbourhood policy. 

Question 24:  

Do  you  consider  it  necessary  to  make  adjustments  to  the  treatment  of  EU  citizens  holding 
third country qualifications under the Directive, for example by reducing the three years rule 
in  Article  3  (3)?  Would  you  welcome  such  adjustment  also  for  third  country  nationals, 
including those falling under the European Neighbourhood Policy, who benefit from an equal 
treatment clause under relevant European legislation? (Please give specific arguments for or 
against this approach.) 

35 

36 
37 
38 
39 

In this context the WHO Global Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel 
is to be taken into consideration. 
Directive 2004/38/EC. 
Directive 2003/109/EC. 
Directive 2004/83/EC. 
Directive 2009/50/EC. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5. 

HOW TO RESPOND TO THE GREEN PAPER 

The Commission invites all interested parties to submit their contributions by 20 September 
2011, preferably by e-mail to the following address: 

DG Internal Market and Services, Unit E-4 “Free movement of professionals"” 
E-mail: MARKT-PQ-EVALUATION@ec.europa.eu 
Postal address: European Commission 
Internal Market Directorate General, Unit E-4 
Rue de Spa 2 
Office 06/014 
1049 Brussels 
Belgium 

Contributions do not need to cover all of the questions raised in this Green Paper. They can be 
limited to questions of particular interest to you. Please indicate clearly the questions to which 
your contribution relates. If possible, please give specific arguments for or against the options 
and approaches presented in the paper. 

All contributions will be published on the DG Internal Market and Services website unless a 
contributor requests otherwise. It is important to read the specific privacy statement attached 
to this Green Paper or information on how your personal data and contribution will be dealt 
with. 

EN 

23 

   EN