COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-12-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, administrative cooperation, domestic market, exchange of information, job mobility, recognition of vocational training qualifications

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 19.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1559 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE 
COUNCIL  

amending Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications and 
Regulation on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information 
System 

{COM(2011) 883 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1558 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  Professional  Qualifications  Directive1  defines  the  conditions  for  the  recognition  of 
professional qualifications in cases of establishment in another Member States as well as the 
conditions for moving to another Member State on a temporary basis.  

The modernisation of the system of recognition of professional qualifications is one of the 12 
levers of the Single Market Act aiming to create growth and boost confidence. It is based on a 
thorough evaluation of the Directive conducted between March 2010 and May 2011. 

2. 

SUBSIDIARITY 

The rules governing the recognition of professional qualifications are laid down in Directive 
2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications. Changes to this acquis imply the 
modification of this Directive but not a new Directive. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

Based on the analysis of the problems presented in the next section, the main objectives of the 
initiative  are  to  facilitate  the  mobility  of  professionals  and  the  intra-EU  trade  in  services, 
address the challenge of filling high-skill jobs and offer more possibilities for job seekers. 

4. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION, POLICY OPTIONS AND THEIR IMPACTS 

The identification of the problem areas derives mainly from the outcome of the evaluation and 
from the reactions to the Green Paper the Commission issued on 22 June 2011.  

4.1. 

Information and e-government for citizens 

Professionals  seeking  the  recognition  of  their  qualifications  still  experience  difficulties  in 
identifying the right competent authority and the documents they need to submit.  

Another  issue  concerns  the  limited  use  of  electronic  means  for  completing  recognition 
procedures. In particular, health professions and job seekers do not benefit from the facilities 
offered by the Points of Single Contact (PSC) set up in the context of the Services Directive. 
The impact assessment identified 4 potential options: 1). No action at EU level; 2). Strengthen 
the national contact points; 3). Member States should provide a central online point to access 
information and complete recognition procedures; 4). Extend the scope of the PSC. 

Option  4  is  the  preferred  option  as  it  foresees  that  all  information  and  procedures  must  be 
made available by Member States through the PSC, to which professionals are the most likely 
to revert to.  

1 

Directive  2005/36/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  7  September  2005  on  the 
recognition of professional qualifications (OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p.22) 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.2. 

Efficiency of recognition procedures 

4.2.1.  Length of recognition procedures 

The  Directive  foresees  specific  deadlines  for  processing  of  recognition  requests  (3  or  4 
months).  These  deadlines  do  not  seem  to  be  adapted  to  the  needs  of  the  labour  market. 
Moreover,  it  appears  that  they  are  often  not  respected.  The  increasing  use  of  the  Internal 
Market  Information  System  (IMI)  in  has  facilitated  the  exchange  of  information  between 
competent authorities but does not seem to have accelerated the procedures for citizens.  

Four different options are examined: 1). No policy change; 2). Stronger enforcement by the 
Commission in individual cases; 3). Shorten the deadlines in the Directive for all professions; 
4). Involve the home Member State and create a European professional mobility card. 

Option 4 should be preferred since it addresses the problem upstream and creates favourable 
conditions to accelerate the recognition procedure. It foresees stricter deadlines but provides 
the  necessary  instruments  (professional  card)  to  meet  them.  The  option  requires  limited 
investments from the Commission and would have positive impact on the recognition costs in 
Member States. However, it could require additional efforts from some Member States.  

4.2.2. 

Justification and organisation of compensation measures 

Problems  in  this  area  concern  mainly  the  lack  of  justification  of  the  decisions  taken  by  the 
competent authorities and the organisation of the compensation measures.  

The  impact  assessment  sets  out  the  following  options:  1).  No  policy  change;  2).  Develop 
comprehensive  guidelines  on  the  use  and  organisation  of  compensation  measures;  3). 
Optimise the use of compensation measures; 4). Option 3 and ensure regular organisation of 
compensation measures. 

The conclusion is that Option 4 is the most effective since it addresses all identified problems.  

4.2.3.  Absence of common platforms 

Common  platforms  were  introduced  in  order  to  facilitate  the  implementation  of  the  general 
recognition  system.  Despite  attempts  at  achieving  it,  no  common  platform  has  so  far  been 
introduced.  

The impact assessment analyses the following options: 1). No action; 2). Deleting the concept 
of  common  platforms;  3).  Revising  the  concept  of  common  platform;  4).  Harmonising 
minimum training requirements for new professions. 

Option  3  offers  the  most  effective  solution  to  professionals  who  will  obtain  the  recognition 
without compensation measures.  

4.3. 

Functioning of the system of automatic recognition 

4.3.1.  Notification of new diplomas 

Evidence  from  the  evaluation  demonstrates  that  the  procedure  for  notifying  and  examining 
new  diplomas  in  architecture  is  considered  burdensome.  Moreover,  the  minimum  training 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
requirements for the 6 professions in the health sector, mandatory for all Member States, may 
not always be respected on the ground.  

The  impact  assessment  identified  the  following  policy  options:  1).  No  action;  2).  National 
compliance function; 3). EU-level compliance body.  

It concludes that Option 2 should be preferred as it would create better conditions for more 
timely notifications of diplomas, ease the burden associated with the examination of diplomas 
and ensure the respect of the minimum training requirements.  

4.3.2.  Adjustments of the minimum training requirements 

The  minimum  training  requirements  defined  in  the  Directive  do  not  necessarily  reflect 
scientific and technical progress and the recent educational reforms. 

a). Clarification of minimum training periods for doctors, nurses and midwives: the minimum 
duration  of  the  training  is  expressed  in  terms  of  years  or  training  hours.  This  gave  rise  to 
diverging  interpretations  whether  the  two  criteria  constitute  two  options  or  are  cumulative. 
The following options are considered: 1). No action; 2). Exclude one of the two criteria; 3). 
Combination of the two criteria and adaptation of the number of years for doctors; 4). Option 
3 and introduce a reference to ECTS (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System).  

The  preferred  option  is  Option  4,  as  it  clarifies  the  legal  provisions  (number  of  years  and 
hours apply together) and offers the necessary flexibility for doctors (number of training hours 
to be distributed over at least five years).  

b).  Admission  requirements  for  nurses  and  midwives:  the  admission  requirement  for  nurse 
and midwifery training is currently minimum 10 years of general education. Considering the 
evolution  of  these  professions,  stakeholders  argued  that  the  training  should  be  raised  to  12 
years  of  general  education  as  it  is  already  the  case  in  24  Member  States.  The  following 
options are examined: 1). No action; 2). Require 12 years for both professions; 3). Update the 
requirement  only  for  midwives; 4). Require 12 years or equivalent for  both  professions and 
foresee a transition period.  

The  preferred  option  is  Option  4.  It  enables  Member  States  to  educate  more  skilled  and 
independent  nurses  and  midwives  and  maintains  trust  in  nurse  and  midwife  qualifications 
obtained in an EU Member State.  

c). Opening up new pharmacies: a derogation adopted in 1985 allows Member States not to 
give effect to the recognition of a pharmacist's qualification for the setting up or management 
of  new  pharmacies.  This  is  a  discrimination  against  EU  citizen.  The  impact  assessment 
analysed  the  following  options:  1).  No  action;  2).  Repeal  this  provision.  Option  2  is  the 
preferred option as it ends the existing discrimination based on a foreign qualification. 

d).  Minimum  training  requirements  for  architects:  they  no  longer  reflect  the  prevailing 
standard  in  architectural  education.  Moreover,  requirements  for  fully  qualifying  as  an 
architect,  notably  practical  experience,  are  not  covered  by  the  Directive.  The  following 
options are considered: 1). Do nothing; 2). Increase minimum duration of training from 4 to 5 
years; 3). Increase duration to 5 years and include supervised practical experience of 2 years; 
4).  Set  the  training  of  architects  to  6  years,  consisting  of  minimum  4  years  of  university 
training and minimum 1 year of practical experience.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
Option 4 is preferred since it brings the Directive's requirements more closely in line with the 
commonly accepted standards.  

4.3.3.  Automatic recognition based on professional experience 

Feedback received from competent authorities shows that the International Standard Industrial 
Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC) from 1958, the basis of Annex IV, does not 
always  allow  for  an  identification  of  the  professions  which  should  benefit  from  automatic 
recognition. This creates legal uncertainty for professionals.  

The following options are considered in the impact assessment: 1). No action; 2). Immediate 
replacement  of  the  ISIC  classification  of  1958  by  another  classification;  3).  Update  of  the 
ISIC classification of 1958 with the most recent ISIC classification dated 2008; 4). Introduce 
more flexibility in order to allow a modernisation of the classification in the future. 

Option 4 should be the preferred one: it allows reviewing the classification of activities at a 
later  stage,  drawing  on  the  results  of  a  study  which  would  assess  the  impacts  on  different 
stakeholders. 

4.4. 

Establishing in another Member State 

4.4.1.  Qualifications levels 

If  there  is  a  difference  of  two  or  more  qualification  levels  between  the  qualification  of  the 
applicant  and  the  qualification  required  in  the  host  Member  State,  the  applicant  is  excluded 
from  the  benefits  of  the  Directive,  such  as  procedural  safeguards.  The  relevance  of  the 
qualifications levels in the Directive has been questioned, mainly for its lack of consistency 
with the European Qualifications Framework2.  

The following options are considered in the impact assessment: 1). No action at EU level; 2). 
Simplify  the  classification  of  education  levels;  3).  Remove  the  classification  from  the 
Directive. 

Option  2  is  the  preferred  one  as  it  would  reduce  the  current  legal  uncertainty  related  to  the 
applications  examined  under  the  Treaty.  The  existing  classification  would  continue  to 
constitute a reference point for comparing qualifications.  

4.4.2.  Partial access 

Economic activities associated with a particular profession can differ significantly from one 
Member State to another. An aptitude test or an adaptation period may not always compensate 
for these differences. As an alternative to completing new training in the host Member State, 
the European Court of Justice laid down the principle of partial access to a profession3.  

The  impact  assessment  considers  the  following  options:  1).  No  action;  2).  Introduce  the 
possibility of partial access in the Directive for all professions; 3). Introduce the possibility of 
partial access in the Directive but exclude professions with public health implications. 

2 

3 

Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on the establishment 
of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning, OJ 2008/C 111/01 
Case C-330/03 of 19 January 2006, European Court reports 2006 Page I-801 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Option 3 is the preferred option. It can reduce obstacles to mobility while taking into account 
consumer protection and patient safety.  

4.4.3.  Mobility from non-regulating to regulating Member States (establishment) 

Professionals  coming  from  non-regulating  countries  are  currently  obliged  to  demonstrate  2 
years  of  professional  experience  in  the  last  10  years  or  prove  that  they  have  completed 
"regulated education and training" geared to the specific profession.  

The  impact  assessment  discusses  the  following  options:  1).  No  action;  2).  Broaden  the 
concept of regulated education and training; 3). Remove all specific requirements. 

Option  3  is  the  preferred  option  since  it  would  simplify  the  administrative  requirements  for 
professionals coming from non-regulating countries.  

4.5.  Moving on temporary basis 

The introduction of a specific regime for the free provision of cross-border services has been 
the  major  innovation  of  the  Professional  Qualifications  Directive  in  2005.  However, 
competent  authorities  reported  limited  experience.  This  might  be  linked  to  the  legal  to  the 
requirements imposed on professionals and to the lack of clarity of some provisions.  

4.5.1.  Requirements imposed on professionals from non-regulating Member States 

The  following  options  are  presented:  1).  No  action;  2).  Broaden  the  concept  of  "regulated 
education and training"; 3). Exempt professionals accompanying consumers.  

Option 3 offers flexibility and a more effective solution even if limited to a smaller proportion 
of professionals. Activities with public health and safety risk should be excluded from Option 
3. 

4.5.2.  Temporary mobility with prior check of the qualifications 

Several  options  are  discussed:  1).  No  action;  2).  Member  States  would  produce  a  list  of 
professions  with  health  and  safety  implications;  3).  The  Commission  would  define  a  list  of 
professions with health and safety implications.  

Option 2 should be preferred because it gives more clarity to the existing provisions without 
important additional costs.  

4.5.3.  Lack of clarity on the scope of the regime 

The impact assessment considers the following options: 1). No action; 2). Provide a guidance 
document  to  competent  authorities;  3).  Specify  a  maximum  duration/frequency  for  the 
"temporary and occasional provision of services".  

It  concludes  that  Option  2  is  the  preferred  one  as  it  presents  a  non-binding  and  flexible 
solution in line with the Court case law while providing the necessary guidance to competent 
authorities.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
4.6. 

Scope of the Directive 

The Directive applies only to a certain extent to the holders of third country qualifications and 
does not cover not fully qualified professionals and notaries.  

4.6.1.  Not fully qualified professionals 

The following options are discussed: 1). No action; 2). Enlarge the scope of the Directive; 3). 
Option 2 and clarify the situation in the home Member State.  

Option  3  is  the  most  efficient  solution  as  it  not  only  organises  the  movement  of  the 
professional to the host Member State but also his return to the home Member State. 

4.6.2.  Third country qualifications 

Three options are discussed: 1). No action; 2). Reduce the requirement from 3 to 2 years of 
professional  experience;  3).  Enlarge  the  scope  of  the  Directive  to  cover  the  recognition  of 
third country qualifications (for the first recognition).  

Option 1 should be preferred as the two other options are not supported by Member States and 
prove to be over ambitious at this moment. 

4.6.3.  Notaries 

The impact assessment considers the following options: 1). No action; 2). Excluding notaries 
from the Directive; 3). Extending the Directive to cases of establishment ; 4). Establishment 
with limited scope of provision of services; 5). Full application of the Directive.  

It concludes that option 4 responds best to the specificities of the profession. 

4.7. 

Protection of patients 

Public health emerged as a particular issue during the evaluation of the Directive.  

4.7.1.  Guarantees on the status of professionals 

Some  stakeholders,  even  a  few  governments,  suggested  making  the  continuous  professional 
development  (CPD)  of  health  professionals  mandatory  under  the  Directive.  There  is  also  a 
concern of competent authorities on doctors or nurses who have been out of practice for many 
years or might be barred from practising due to disciplinary or penal sanctions.  

The following options are discussed: 1). No action; 2). Adding new requirements on CPD and 
recent  professional  experience;  3).  Adding  new  requirements  with  respect  to  recent 
professional  experience;  4).  Introduction  of  an  alert  mechanism  combined  with  increased 
transparency between Member States on CPD.  

Option  4  is  the  preferred  one  as  it  effectively  reduces  risks  of  health  professionals  moving 
from one Member State to another whilst not longer allowed to practice.  

4.7.2.  Guarantees on language skills  

Language knowledge of professionals is a sensitive issue for patients. The Directive imposes 
an  obligation  upon  the  professionals  but  does  not  prescribe  any  particular  means  by  which 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Member  States  should  enforce  the  obligation.  Concerns  have  been  raised  in  this  regard  for 
health professionals.  

The impact assessment analyses the following options: 1). No action; 2). Introduce systematic 
checking of language skills on health professionals and harmonise it at EU level; 3). Clarify 
the rules on how to enforce checking language skills for professionals on a case by case basis.  

Option  3  is  the  preferred  option  as  it  ensures  a  balance  between  the  need  to  ensure  patient 
safety and the required effectiveness of recognition procedures.  

4.8. 

Lack  of  transparency  and  justification  of  qualifications  requirements  in 
regulated professions  

800  categories  of  professions  are  regulated  within  the  EU.  The  reserved  tasks  associated  to 
regulated professions as well as the type of qualification required can vary significantly from 
one Member State to another.  

Given  the  current  debate  on  the  number  of  regulated  professions  (and  the  request  of  the 
European Parliament to reduce the number), it seems first of all necessary to ensure a greater 
transparency and justification of regulated professions.  

The impact assessment examines the following options: 1) No action at EU level; 2) Ensure 
greater  transparency  on  the  regulation  of  the  professions;  3)  Option  2  and  launch  a  mutual 
evaluation exercise; 4) Option 2 and introduce a specific regime for professions regulated in 
only one Member State.  

Option  3  should  be  preferred,  as  it  would  effectively  improve  transparency  and  encourages 
Member States to assess and compare their national regulations. 

5. 

OVERALL IMPACTS OF THE PACKAGE 

Policy options are combined in a way to ensure the internal coherence of the initiative. The 
impact  on  the  stakeholders  is  always  considered  as  well  as  the  administrative  burden  and 
compliance costs created by the preferred policy options.  

6. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Specific  indicators  have  been  set  to  monitor  the  progress  on  the  implementation  of  the 
Directive. Reporting obligations have also been foreseen in order to assess the functioning of 
the different recognition systems.  

EN 

8 

   EN