COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on reform recommendations for regulation in professional services
Date: 2017-01-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: access to a profession, accountant, civil engineering, lawyer, liberal profession, professional qualifications, provision of services, real estate business, tourist guide, town-planning profession

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 10.1.2017  COM(2016) 820 final   COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on reform recommendations for regulation in professional services {SWD(2016) 436 final}  
 
 
I. 

Regulation of professional services in its context 

I.1. 

Political context 

A  deeper  and  fairer  internal  market  is  one  of  the  10  priorities  of  the  Commission.  The 
European  Council  considers  that  ‘delivering  a  deeper  and  fairer  Single  Market  will  be 
instrumental in creating new jobs, promoting productivity and ensuring an attractive climate 
for investment and innovation’.1 
In  its  Single  Market  Strategy  for  goods  and  services  of  28 October  2015,2  the  Commission 
announced  that  it  would  issue  guidance  to  Member  States  on  reform  needs  in  professional 
services. This measure is one of the actions and strategies on the Single Market for which the 
European Council has called for speedy implementation by 2018.3 The European Parliament 
endorsed the Commission’s initiative in its Report on the Single Market Strategy.4 

The  regulation  of  professional  services  is  a  prerogative  of  the  Member  States.  It  aims  at 
ensuring  the  protection  of  general  interest  objectives.  The  particular  way  Member  States 
regulate a profession stems from a number of factors such as: the importance that society puts 
on  specific  general  interest  objectives  to  be  protected;  the  efficiency  of  different 
administrative  and  judicial  supervisory  arrangements;  economic  situations;  the  relative 
economic  importance  of  the  sector  for  the  country  in  question  and  the  strength  of  vested 
interests. 

A combination of these factors and the resulting policy assessments has led to the adoption of 
different  regulatory  models.  The  existence  of  various  models  is  not  an  issue.  The  aim, 
therefore, is not to impose directly or indirectly any particular regulatory model throughout 
the EU. 

No  matter  which  regulatory  framework  is  chosen,  regulation  creates  obstacles  for  the 
functioning of the Single Market and holds back the potential for growth and job creation in 
the EU economies. Removing such barriers opens up opportunities and has a positive impact 
on  the  productivity  and  competitiveness  of  the  EU  economy.  Irrespective  of  the  model 
applicable  in  each  country  or  region,  where  restrictions  may  be  eliminated  or  be  rendered 
more proportionate, this task should be undertaken to the benefit of the citizens, consumers 
and professionals. For this purpose, experience drawn from other Member States on the best 
way to proceed will be helpful. 

Obstacles for growth and trade may originate in seemingly less important restrictions, whose 
cumulative  effects  may  be  pernicious.  The  objective  of  this  Communication  is  not  only  to 
assist Member States with the removal of specific unjustified substantive restrictions, but to 
create a ‘virtuous’ regulatory awareness by Member States. 

1  Conclusions  of  the  European  Council  of  28 June  2016  and  20-21 October  2016.  Already  in  its  conclusions  of  24-
25 October 2013 the European Council stressed the importance of the mutual evaluation of regulated professions launched 
by  the  Commission  and  called  for  swift  progress.  This  exercise  should  identify  the  remaining  barriers  to  access  to 
professions in the Member States, assess the cumulative effect of all restrictions imposed on the same profession and suggest 
appropriate action. 
2  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  regions,  Upgrading  the  Single  Market:  more  opportunities  for  people  and  business, 
COM(2015) 550 final. 
3  See  also  the  conclusions  of  the  Competitiveness  Council  of  29 February  2016  welcoming  the  periodic  country-specific 
guidance  on  regulated  professions,  also  in  light  of  its  potential  to  ensure  that  regulation  by  each  Member  State  is 
proportionate and stressing the need to ensure an effective and consistent follow-up. In its conclusions of 1-2 March 2012, 
the Council stressed the importance of making progress on enhancing the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, 
reducing the number of regulated professions and removing unjustified regulatory barriers. 
4 2015/2354(INI). 

2 

 
 
                                                            
The reform recommendations in this Communication address a broad range of requirements 
and do so by way of a comparative analysis following the spirit and the work carried out in 
the  mutual  evaluation  exercise  with  Member  States  during  the  past  3  years.5  The 
recommendations aim at supporting Member States in creating a regulatory environment that 
is conducive to growth, innovation and the creation of jobs. They are not limited to cases of 
violation  of  Union  law  even  though  some  of  the  requirements  referred  to  might  constitute 
such a breach. 

A number of recent studies demonstrate  that there  is a significant untapped potential in the 
development of professional services. One such recent study from the World Bank suggested 
that  productivity  could  be  raised  by  an  estimated  5 %  if  services  barriers  were  reduced.6 
Another study showed that entry and exit of firms have a significant effect on the profit rates 
and allocative efficiency for the professional services sector (legal, accounting, architectural 
and  engineering).7  A  2015  European  Commission  assessment  of  the  economic  impact  of 
selected  barriers  in  four  business  services  (architects,  civil  engineers,  accountants  and 
lawyers)  confirmed  a  significant  economic  impact  on  intensity  of  competition,  sector 
profitability and efficiency of resource allocation.8 

Even more,  due to  the nature  of service provision, the sector  has  strong inter-linkages  with 
other  economic  sectors,  such  as  manufacturing.9  Given  the  importance  of  the  EU  services 
market for the overall EU economy, a well-functioning services market is a key component in 
the Commission’s focus on boosting job creation, growth and investment. 

This  Communication  identifies  possibilities  for  improving  the  regulatory  environment  for  a 
number of economically important groups of professional services. Reform recommendations 
are  formulated  for  each  Member  State  taking  into  account  the  specific  regulatory 
environment in place. Given the different regulatory approaches, not all Member States have 
the  same  need  to  review  and  modify  the  regulation.  As  a  consequence,  recommendations 
differ  from  country  to  country and some  Member  States  may  not  receive  recommendations 
for one or several professional services. Also, some of the reform needs identified might have 
more serious and even legal implications in cases where an infringement of EU law might be 
established. 

The  Commission  will  monitor  the  implementation  of  the  recommendations  in  this 
Communication together with the Member States and propose, where appropriate, measures 
to  address  remaining  barriers.  This  could  include  enforcement  action  as  regards  possible 
violations  of  Union  law  or  legislative  proposals  to  address  remaining  burdensome 
requirements. 

This  Communication  and  its  reform  recommendations  complement  the  Commission’s 
broader Annual Growth Survey by providing a comprehensive and in-depth analysis covering 
all  the  Member  States  in  the  selected  sectors  and  groups  of  professions,  and  identifying 
concrete  reform  possibilities  across  all  Member  States  in  these  sectors.  It  provides  a  more 
specific  approach  in  a  significant  area  for  structural  reforms  and,  where  relevant, 

5 For a description of this exercise see point I.2 below. 
6 EU Regular Economic Report, Fall 2016, World Bank Group. 
7 ‘Product Market Review 2013 — Financing the real economy’; European economy 8/2013, European Commission. 
8 http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/13405?locale=en. 
9  See  for  example  E.  Fernández  Corugedo  and  E.  Pérez  Ruiz,  ‘The  EU  Services  Directive:  Gains  from  Further 
Liberalisation’, IMF Working Paper, 2014. The results in this study are based on the impact of further liberalisation on the 
French economy. The study shows in particular that increasing the total factor productivity in the other business activities 
sector (mainly including business services) would lead to significant economy-wide spill-overs. 

3 

 
 
                                                            
complements  and  supports 
recommendations under the European Semester. 

the  Commission's  analysis  and 

the  country-specific 

I.2.   Legal context 

Professional services constitute a very important element in the economy of Member States 
and  the  EU.  Many  of  them  provide  essential  input  for  other  market  operators  and  the 
economy as a whole and many of them are active in sensitive domains, often characterised by 
asymmetry of information and considerations related to broader policy objectives such as the 
functioning of the judicial system, safety of the built environment, etc.  

It is up to each Member State to decide whether there is a need to intervene and to impose 
rules and restrictions for the access to or exercise of a profession, as long as the principles of 
non-discrimination  and  proportionality  are  respected.  Member  States  determine  the  public 
interest objective they want to protect and choose the most appropriate way to achieve this.  

Requirements imposed on professional services have been the subject of European Court of 
Justice  jurisprudence.  The  Court  has  repeatedly  held  that,  even  if  applied  without  any 
discrimination,  national  regulations  of  professions  including  requirements  concerning 
qualifications  are  liable  to  hinder  or  make  less  attractive  the  exercise  of  the  fundamental 
freedoms by EU citizens and companies, guaranteed to them by the Treaty.10 The Court also 
stated that the fact that one Member State imposes less strict rules than another Member State 
does not mean that the latter’s rules are disproportionate and incompatible with EU law. It is 
for the Member States to assess whether it is necessary to place restrictions on professional 
activities  on  a  case-by-case  basis  and  taking  into  account  the  entirety  of  the  regulatory 
context. 

In  many  cases,  regulation  is  justified,  e.g.  when  it  comes  to  health  and  safety  issues. 
However, for regulation to be fit for purpose, it has to be reviewed regularly in order to take 
account of changing environments, e.g. technical innovation, better educated consumers, etc. 
Established  rules  may  no  longer  be  the  most  appropriate  ones  and  might  have  lost  their 
justification because of technological, societal or market developments. The latter may also 
create  the  need  for  regulatory  responses,  for  instance  in  the  area  of  tax  avoidance  and 
evasion.  However,  the  appropriate  response  does  not  necessarily  consist  in  regulating  a 
particular profession and may rather be broader, such as mandatory disclosure rules imposed 
on any intermediary in tax matters. 
Already  in  2013  the  Professional  Qualifications  Directive11  was  amended  and  introduced  a 
transparency  and  mutual  evaluation  exercise  in  which  the  Member  States  reported  which 
professions  they  regulate  and  examined  the  respective  barriers  limiting  access  to  certain 
professions.12 The objective of this exercise was to review all regulated professions in each 
Member State in order to achieve a regulatory environment that is proportionate and adapted 
to the real objectives of protecting general interests. In this context, a number of professions 
have been discussed as examples to illustrate different regulatory approaches among Member 

10 See landmark Case C-340/89 Vlassopoulou, Case C-313/01 Morgenbesser, Case C-345/08 Peśla. 
11 Directive 2005/36/EC, as amended by Directive 2013/55. 
12  The  Communication  of  the  Commission  of  2 October  2013  (COM(2013)676)  sets  out  a  work  plan  to  improve 
transparency on national professional regulations and to assess and discuss justification and proportionality of existing rules 
(mutual  evaluation).  Starting  in  2014,  this  process  required  Member  States  firstly  to  introduce  all  the  professions  they 
regulated into the regulated professions database alongside all the regulatory measures they implemented for each profession 
notified. Then, using this information, they were required to review the impact of such measures and to consider their value 
in protecting legitimate public interests. 

4 

 
 
                                                            
States  in  order  to  get  a  better  view  and  understanding  about  regulatory  solutions  in 
professional services of other Member States.13 

One of the conclusions to be taken from the discussions in the mutual evaluation exercise is 
that  differences  between  regulatory  concepts  as  such  do  not  necessarily  indicate  a  need  for 
reform.  However,  while  public  interest  objectives  that  regulation  is  supposed  to  protect  are 
similar, the level of regulation might be so different that it raises questions as to why the level 
of  state  intervention  is  particularly  high  in  one  or  more  countries.  Restrictions  might  also 
exist in Member States not regulating a profession, for instance where certification systems 
play an important role on the market. 

The  mutual  evaluation  exercise  culminated  in  a  requirement  for  Member  States  to  submit 
national  action  plans  (NAPs)  to  the  Commission  by  18 January  2016  outlining  and 
justifying  any  decisions  they  had  taken  as  a  result  of  this  analysis  to  maintain  or  amend 
professional regulations.14  

To  date  there  are  still  seven Member  States,  namely  Cyprus,  Greece,  Hungary,  Ireland, 
Malta, Slovenia and Spain which have not transmitted their NAP. Looking at the content of 
the NAPs which were submitted, the level of ambition is very different, with some Member 
States  describing  a  comprehensive  approach  to  reviewing  legislation  or  targeted  reforms  in 
specific  professions,  while  others  showed  a  rather  limited  intention  for  reforms.  For  some 
Member  States,  actions  mentioned  in  their  plan  refer  to  past  measures  because  they  had 
already been through a reform process, although this does not necessarily mean that there is 
no  scope  for  further  reforms.  In  other  cases,  there  seems  to  be  a  lack  of  political  will  to 
engage in a serious and open review of the current situation. 
The Commission’s Single Market Strategy announced a number of actions15 to improve the 
national regulation of professions, namely:  

  a services passport/card;  

  an improved notification procedure under the Services Directive;  

  guidance on specific reform needs per country and per profession;  

 

introduction  of  an  analytical 

the 
(‘proportionality test’).  

framework 

for  proportionality  analysis 

The guidance on reform recommendations and the proportionality test can be considered as 
complementary: while the present Communication aims at prompting Member States to make 
concrete  adaptations  to  the  existing  regulatory  framework  of  specific  professions,  the 
proportionality  test  aims  at  acting  pre-emptively  through  providing  a  general  set  of  criteria 
assisting  Member  States  in  a  thorough  assessment  of  justifications  and  needs  for  future 
regulation of professions in all sectors before they adopt new legislation or make any changes 
to their existing rules. Both the reform recommendations and the proportionality test aim at 
refining  Member  States’  approaches  to  regulation,  not  by  dictating  them,  but  rather  by 
ensuring  better  regulatory  practices  to  guarantee  that  regulation  is  proportionate  and  that 
negative economic consequences are avoided. 

13  The  reports  drawn up  after  these  discussions can  be  found  under  http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/services/free-
movement-professionals/transparency-mutual-recognition_en. 
14 The national action plan is part of the legal obligations Member States have to fulfil in the transposition of the Professional 
Qualifications  Directive.  Not  delivering  any  plan  puts  Member  States  at  risk  of  having  infringement  proceedings  lodged 
against them. National actions plans are publicly available — see http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/17943. 
15 Actions including facilitating the cross-border operations of start-ups via the digital single gateway were adopted on 22 
November 2016, see http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-3882_en.htm. 

5 

 
 
                                                            
These  actions  constitute  the  initiatives  to  be  presented  by  the  Commission  on  the  basis  of 
Article 59(8) and (9) of the Professional Qualifications Directive. The rationale of these two 
initiatives  was  endorsed  by  the  European  Parliament16  and  Council17  in  2016.  In  its 
conclusions  of  29 February  2016  the  Council  welcomed  country-specific  guidance  on 
professional  services  and  emphasised  the  need  for  more  consistent  proportionality 
assessments of regulatory requirements regarding professions.18 

I.3. 

Economic context 

A better functioning of the Single Market gives EU Member States advantages at the national 
as well as global level. Total services account for 71 % of GDP, representing slightly more 
than,  EUR 10  trillion  and  68 %  of  total  employment,  i.e.  roughly  150  million  people19 
However,  it  is  broadly  acknowledged  that  the  full  potential  of  a  Single  Market  in  services 
remains unfulfilled. 

At present, based on what Member States notified in the regulated professions database, there 
are  over  5 500  regulated  professions  across  the  EU.20  There  are  large  variations  between 
countries, ranging from Lithuania, which reported only 76, to Hungary with 545.21 However, 
these  numbers  tell  us  little  about  the  intensity  (or  proportionality)  of  the  regulation,  its 
economic impact or the characteristics of people affected by it. 

The regulation of professional services aims at ensuring the protection of a number of general 
interest  objectives.  A  multitude  of  methods  and  models  have  been  developed,  based  on 
market  particularities,  national  and  political  preferences.  Regulation  tends  also  to  be 
comprehensive,  covering  a  broad  range  of  regulatory  issues,  and  often  contains  numerous 
restrictions ranging from more or less wide exclusivities on the exercise of certain activities 
(reserves of activities)22 and the protection of professional titles23 to restrictions on corporate 
forms or who controls the ownership or management of companies that provide professional 
services. Even when such regulations fully achieve their policy aim, it is undeniable that they 
have a significant economic impact.  

Measuring the precise economic impact of regulation for professional services is difficult and 
until  recently  no  figures  even  existed  regarding  the  prevalence  and  effects  of  occupational 
regulation  on  the  EU  labour  market.  In  response  to  this  lack  of  figures,  the  Commission 
contracted  the  first  ever  EU-wide  representative  survey  to  provide  the  data  necessary  to 
measure the prevalence of regulated professions.24 Conducted during the first quarter of 2015, 
the survey contacted over 26 600 European citizens and concluded that 22 % of the European 
labour  force,  or  over  47  million  citizens,  are  directly  affected  by  regulation.  Its  prevalence 

16 European Parliament Resolution of 26 May 2016 on the Single Market Strategy. 
17 Council Conclusions on ‘The Single Market Strategy for services and goods’ of 29 February 2016. 
18 Council Conclusions of 29 February 2016. 
19 Source: National account statistics. 
20 See interactive map in the EU regulated professions database for a visual representation of occupational regulation across 
the  EU  countries  (https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/services/free-movement-professionals/regulated-professions-
database_en°). The database includes information on the regulated professions covered by Directive 2005/36/EC and shows 
that some 600 different ‘generic professions’ are affected by occupational regulation. For each generic profession there are 
usually many more professions covered by the national terminology. This is because under each generic profession there are 
several sub-professions, which brings the number of regulated professions in the EU up to around 5 500. 
21 EU regulated professions database, November 2016. 
22 The concept of reserved activities does not always refer to activities regulated by law. A ‘reserve of activities’ could be 
implied by any requirement reserving the exercise of a service activity to the holders of a specific professional qualification. 
23 Title protection refers to legislation conferring the right to carry a particular professional title (such as attorney-at-law, 
architect, tourist guide) on those who meet particular requirements, most often on holders of a particular qualification. 
24 M. Koumenta and M. Pagliero (2016), "Measuring Prevalence and Labour Market Impacts of Occupational Regulation in 
the EU". See: http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/20362 . 

6 

 
 
                                                            
varies across the Union, from 14 % of the workforce in Denmark to 33 % in Germany (see 
Chart 1). 

Chart 1: share of regulated professions in total labour force, 2015 

Source: TNS survey, 2015. 

The analysis of the economic effects of regulation shows that depending on the occupation, 
there  could  be  between  3  and  9 %  more  people  working  in  a  given  profession  if  access 
requirements  were  made  less  stringent.  The  study  estimates  also  that  regulation  implies  an 
aggregate wage premium of about 4 % but with considerable variations depending on sectors 
(up  to  19.2 %  in  some  areas).25  This  could  translate  into  higher  prices  of  services  for 
consumers.  This  is  reflected  in  significant  differences  in  wages  across  professional  groups 
and suggests that regulation by way f reserves of activities may significantly distort relative 
wages.  It  also  suggests  that  professional  regulation  contributes  to  wage  inequality  in  the 
European labour market, particularly benefiting those at the top of the income distribution. 

Further,  a  number  of  studies  recently  contracted  by  the  Commission  show  that  making 
regulation  more  proportionate  and  adapted  to  market  reality,  e.g.  by  relaxing  the  most 
restrictive  and  unjustified  requirements, resulted  in  improved  market  dynamics,  specifically 
leading  to  more  market  openings,  more  start-ups  and  new  innovative  services  brought  to 
market  by  new  entrants.26  It  would  also  lead  to  benefits  for  consumers  in  terms  of  lower 
prices as a result of reduced profit rates.  

Finally,  the  analysis  confirmed  that  lower  barriers  would  lead  to  better  performing  sectors 
characterised  by  a  stronger  allocative  efficiency.27  Case  studies  of  reforms  at  national  level 
show the impact reforms of the conditions to access and exercise regulated  professions can 
have on the sector. In Greece, reforms resulted in lower prices for consumers of services such 

25 Wage premiums and high profit margins are a common indicator of monopoly rents, which in turn lead to high prices for 
consumers and an overall lack of competition within the profession. 
26The  effects  of 

to  access  professions:  country-based  case 

requirements 

reforms  of 

regulatory 

studies     

http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8525&lang=en. 

27  European  Commission:  ‘Business  Services  —  Assessment  of  Barriers  and  their  Economic  Impact’;  available  at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/services/economic-analysis_en. 

7 

0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%DKSELVFIMTBEFRESPTLTEEUKCYITSIBGPLLUELROEU28ATNLCZHUSKIEHRDE 
 
 
                                                            
as  legal  professions,  accountants  and  tax  consultants,  which  were  liberalised  by  the  reform 
enacted  in  2011.  The  number  of  tourist  guides  and  chartered  valuers  more  than  doubled  in 
2014  compared  with  the  yearly  average  before  the  liberalisation.28  In  Poland  the  reform  of 
regulation of legal services which took place between 2005 and 2014 has led to there being 
more than double the number of active lawyers and legal advisers, accompanied by a lower 
than  average  increase  in  the  price  of  legal  services.  Similarly,  the  reform  of  the  real  estate 
agent  and  real  estate  manager  professions  has  led  to  a  net  creation  of  businesses  in  the 
sector.29   

I.4.  Analysis and guidance: new restrictiveness indicator 

Analysis and guidance for professions in key economic sectors 

This  Communication  and  its  annexes  provide  a  detailed  analysis  of  the  regulations  which 
apply to architects, civil engineers, accountants, lawyers, patent agents, real estate agents and 
tourist guides. These seven groups of professions were selected because they belong to four 
key economic sectors (business services, construction, real estate and tourism). The mobility 
in  those  professions  is  relatively  high  and  the  professions  are  regulated  in  a  majority  of 
Member  States,  albeit  with  divergent  regulation.  This  means  that  there  is  considerable 
potential for meaningful and economically relevant reforms. 

A new indicator on the restrictiveness of occupational regulation 

An indicator on the restrictiveness of occupational regulation has been designed in order to 
support qualitative analysis of the barriers and take into account the accumulated burden of 
multiple  requirements  rather  than  focus  on  measures  in  isolation  from  their  wider 
ramifications.  This  indicator  provides  an  objective  and  measurable  basis  for  comparing 
Member States’ performance in the seven groups of professions selected.  
The following groups of restrictions are covered by the restrictiveness indicator: 30  

(1) regulatory approach: exclusive or shared reserved activities, and protection of title;  
(2)  qualification  requirements:  years  of  education  and  training,  mandatory  state  exam, 
continuous professional development obligations, etc.; 
(3)  other  entry  requirements:  compulsory  membership  or  registration  in  professional  body, 
limitation of the number of licences granted, other authorisation requirements, etc.; 
(4)  exercise  requirements:  restriction  on  corporate  form,  shareholding  requirements, 
restrictions on joint exercise of professions, incompatibilities of activities, etc..  

The  restrictiveness  indicator  builds  in  part  on  a  Commission  assessment  of  barriers  in 
business services published for the first time in 2015,31 but goes beyond this by for example 
also  covering  educational  requirements  not  covered  previously  to  provide  a  holistic 
comparative  understanding  of  the  different  regulatory  requirements  in  place  spanning  the 
whole  course  from  education  and  training  to  exercise  restrictions  and  incompatibilities 
between professions. It covers the same groups of professions as the OECD Product Market 

28 The effects of liberalisation of professional requirements in Greece, E. Athanassiou, N. Kanellopoulos, R. Karagiannis, A. 
Kotsi, Centre for Planning and Economic Research (KEPE), Athens,2015. 
29  Rojek  M.,  Masior  M.,  ‘The  effects  of  reforms  liberalising  professional  requirements  in  Poland’,  Warsaw  School  of 
Economics, 2016 
30 See detailed explanations in the methodological annex (Staff Working Document, Section V). 
31  European  Commission:  ‘Business  Services  —  Assessment  of  Barriers  and  their  Economic  Impact’;  available  at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/services/economic-analysis_en. 

8 

 
 
                                                            
Regulation (PMR)32 adding namely patent agents, real estate agents and tourist guides. Other 
than the OECD PMR indicator, this indicator takes into account the range of professions and 
activities covered which exist and vary between Member States in each of the areas covered, 
it  contains  a  weighting  of  every  restriction  as  to  its  impact  and  it  includes  up-to-date 
information, as derived from the mutual evaluation exercise, making an extensive use of the 
EU  regulated  professions  database.  The  new  indicator  therefore  reflects  the  most  recent 
regulatory changes in the Member States, such as France's law on growth, activity and equal 
economic  opportunities  adopted  in  2015.  This  inevitably  leads  to  results  which  may  be 
different from previous assessments, which were based on the OECD PMR indicator. 

Restrictions cannot be analysed separately without taking into account the other mechanisms 
in  place  to  complement  or  replace  the  specific  restriction.  The  holistic  approach  makes  it 
possible to estimate how restrictive a regulatory framework is for professionals. At this stage 
the indicator will, however, not reveal non-regulatory barriers or the role played by specific 
general  laws  or  mechanisms  in  place  to  protect  the  consumers  and  the  public  interest 
objectives. This is why the indicator is accompanied by a qualitative assessment and analysis 
which provides additional information on the reality on the ground.  
Econometric analysis: economic impact of regulation33  

An  econometric  analysis  done  by  the  Commission  indicates,  for  the  seven  groups  of 
professional  services,  that  lower  levels  of  regulatory  restrictions  coincide  with  better 
economic outcomes, specifically lower incumbents' rents and higher growth of the number of 
enterprises.  

The  indicator  can  be  used  as  a  monitoring  tool  to  measure  the  evolution  of  the  level  of 
restrictiveness  of  regulation  over  time.  The  analysis  below  presents  for  each  group  of 
professions  the  scores  reached  by  the  indicator  at  EU  level,  as  recorded  at  the  end  of 
November 2016. The staff working document provides further details for each Member State. 

II.  

Analysis by profession 

The following sections describe the different sectors analysed. Concepts and (national) terms 
used  in  relation  to  these  professional  services  vary,  and  the  organisation  and  scope  of 
activities of the different professions in these sectors often differ between Member States and 
hence  cannot  always  be  compared  easily.  The  analysis  undertaken  takes  account  of  these 
differences  and  operates  on  the  basis  of  activities  covered  by  a  given  sector  rather  than  a 
national  denomination  or  definition  of  a  particular  profession.  This  concerns  in  particular 
civil  engineering,  where  a  great  variety  and  multitude  of  sub-professions  exist,  and 
accountancy, which is organised very differently in the Member States, is not regulated in a 
number of them or is highly differentiated between different professions, with distinct areas 
of activities assigned to each of them. 

The following assessment is mainly based on:  

 

information provided by Member States themselves through the regulated professions 
database;  

  sector reports for discussion in the context of the mutual evaluation exercise;  
  additional research by the Commission into national legislation.  

32  First  developed  in  1988,  the  OECD  PMR  indicator's  latest  update  was  performed  in  2013.  See:  http://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/economics/the-2013-update-of-the-oecd-s-database-on-product-market-regulation_5js3f5d3n2vl-en.  
33 See Section VI of the accompanying Staff Working Document. 

9 

 
 
                                                            
This information has been checked and discussed with Member States at several instances. It 
also  takes  into  account  complaints  received  or  other  feedback  from  stakeholders  on 
restrictions they face. 

Each  analysis  contains  a  graphical  visualisation  of  the  restrictiveness  indicator.  This 
information  should  be  read  in  conjunction  with  the  descriptive  analysis  provided  for  each 
profession. The indicator aims at capturing the relative intensity of the regulation in place for 
each of the professions in  every Member State. Non-regulatory  barriers are not reflected in 
the indicator. However, they are reflected in the qualitative description to the extent possible 
and depending on information available to the Commission. Therefore there is not necessarily 
a  perfect  correlation  between  the  scores  provided  by  the  indicator  and  the  reform 
recommendations. 

Based  on  the  above  recommendations,  Member  States  should  re-assess  and  reconsider 
restrictions imposed on service providers and regulation for the selected professional sectors, 
and  should  in  particular  consider  the  cumulative  effect  of  the  various  layers  of  regulatory 
measures.  Some  of  the  recommendations  concern  all  Member  States,  while  others  are  also 
addressed to Member States not regulating a profession but where a risk of creation of new 
barriers was identified. 

II.1.   Architects 

The  profession  is  centred  round  planning,  designing  and  reviewing  the  construction  of 
buildings  and  surrounding  space.  Hence,  public  security  and  safety,  protection  of  service 
recipients and the environment are the most commonly cited justifications for regulating this 
profession, pointing to the risks of poor construction. Looking at all the information gathered 
for this Communication there are marked distinctions between approaches to shared goals. 

Chart 2: Restrictiveness indicator: Architects 

Source: European Commission, November 2016. 

Chart  2  shows  the  relative  position  of  Member  States  in  terms  of  restrictiveness  as  to  the 
access  to  and  exercise  of  the  profession  of  architect,  according  to  the  new  restrictiveness 
indicator developed by the Commission. 

The  education  of  architects  has  largely  been  harmonised  so  that  qualifications  can  benefit 
from automatic recognition under the Professional Qualifications Directive. The harmonised 
minimum  requirements  according  to  the  Directive  are  5  years  of  education  or  4  years  of 
education alongside  2 years of practical training.34 In  reality, in  addition to  the minimum 5 
years  of  university-level  training,  most  Member  States  require  further  periods  of  practical 
training  or  experience  in  order  to  gain  professional  access  (e.g.  Austria  5  years  education 

34 To be applied in conjunction with the learning outcomes described in Article 46 of the Directive. 

10 

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5DKSEEENLFIUKLTHUELBGPLFRLVMTCYITSIIESKESCZDEBEROPTHRATLUExercise requirementsOther entry requirementsQualification requirementsRegulatory approach 
 
 
                                                            
plus  3  years  of  practical  training,  the  Czech  Republic  5+3,  Romania  6+2,  Slovakia  6+3, 
Slovenia  5+3).  The  most  commonly  applied  education  period  is  7  years  in  total  on  a  5+2 
model. In 15 countries a state exam is also required. 

In contrast to the other Member States which stipulate that only qualified professionals with 
appropriate licences, certifications or registrations with a relevant body may legally practice 
architecture, Denmark, Estonia, Finland and Sweden do not regulate the profession as such 
but rather rely upon other checks of competence within the construction environment.35 The 
differences  between  the  two  models  may  be  less  significant  than  they  might  appear  where 
‘non-regulating’ countries use certification of competences of architects or ad hoc evaluation 
of competences or experience on a case-by-case basis as a condition for allowing architects to 
provide specific services (e.g. submission of plans or building permits).      

The greatest variance between Member States is in the reserves of activities. As is also the 
case for civil engineers, reservations may be scattered across different rules and regulations, 
which  might  cover  rules  on  construction,  restoration,  cultural  protection,  energy  efficiency 
and others. 

Where  activities  are  reserved  they  often  tend  to  be  shared  with  related  professions, 
particularly  civil  engineers.  Whereas  the  UK  and  the  Netherlands  rely  solely  upon  title 
protection  for  architects  without  any  reserves,  Austria,  Croatia,  Ireland,  Italy, 
Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania and Spain reserve a broad range of activities in addition 
to title protection, such as:  

  architectural design and planning, feasibility studies; 
  examination of design and related documentation; 
  preparation, submission, signing of technical control and compliance or permit-related 

documentation or certification of projects; 

  construction cost management, monitoring of construction and execution; 
  urban territorial planning design.  

Poland  and  Slovakia  also  reserve  many  activities  but  without  title  protection.  Bulgaria 
reserves  to  architects/engineers  the  drawing-up  of  spatial  plans  and  investment  projects  as 
well  as  submitting  those  documents  and  plans  to  the  competent  authorities.  Germany 
reserves the drawing-up of documents for building permit applications, an activity considered 
by some the most important activity, to architects and engineers across all Länder.36 Ireland 
is an example of recent changes: going from unregulated prior to 2007, the country has since 
introduced title protection alongside reserves of activities. 

When  looking  at  distinctions  in  the  accumulation  of  additional  measures,  the  regulatory 
intensity begins to diverge: 

Firstly, Austria, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Malta and the Netherlands have no 
insurance requirements in place, whereas Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, 
France,  Germany,  Italy,  Ireland,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxemburg,  Portugal,  Slovakia, 
Spain, Romania, Poland and the UK do.  

35 In Estonia, for example, carrying out certain professional activities requires a professional certificate (i.e. a certificate at a 
certain level issued by the Qualifications Authority). 
36  The  variation  in  regulation  across  Länder  relates  not  only  to  reserves  but  also  to  shareholding/prior  professional 
experience requirements. Registration is also required at a regional level and varies as a result. 

11 

 
 
                                                            
Secondly, restrictions on corporate form and shareholding are imposed by 16 Member States, 
all of whom except Austria, Cyprus and Malta do so in addition to insurance requirements. 
Belgium,  Cyprus  and  Romania  have  particularly  heavy  restrictions  on  corporate  form  or 
shareholding.  For  example,  Cyprus  requires  100 %  shareholding  by  professionals  and 
disallows  the  provision  of  architectural  services  through  public  limited  liability  companies. 
Belgium  requires  60 %  of  shares  and  voting  rights  to  be  held  by  architects  while  Malta 
restricts company forms but also requires 100 % shareholding. Romania requires businesses 
to  be  owned  only  by  architects;  however,  it  allows  the  establishment  of  commercial design 
companies  having  as  their  main  object  of  activity  architectural  design,  under  the  condition 
that  the  company  includes  at  least  one  architect.  Austria,  the  Czech  Republic,  France, 
Germany, Slovakia and Spain require at least 50 % of the shares to be held by professionals. 

In addition, in Austria the exclusive scope of the activity of architectural firms has to be the 
provision  of  architecture  services  limiting  therefore  significantly  the  possibility  of  joint 
exercise with other professions. 

Some  15 Member  States  impose  continuous  professional  development  (CPD)  but  take  a 
broad range of approaches: Romania requires up to 96 hours/year (five-year cycles, 6 cycles 
during  the  career),  while  Hungary  does  so  through  a  five-year  exam  cycle  and  the 
Netherlands requires only 16 hours annually. Denmark requires employers to set aside 10 % 
of  employees’  annual salary  to  provide  for  their  CPD  whereas  Austria  allows  architects  to 
submit their professional work as CPD. 

One  other  point  to  consider  relates  to  fragmentation  in  market  access,  which  may  cause 
unnecessary  confusion  and  levels  of  authorisation  seeking  in  countries  like  Latvia  and 
Poland. 

Recommendations 

Austria, Croatia, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and 
Spain should reconsider the wide scope of reserved activities. 

Austria,  Belgium,  Cyprus,  the  Czech  Republic,  France,  Germany,  Romania,  Slovakia 
and Spain should consider the impact of the shareholding and company form restrictions they 
have in place in addition to the other requirements. 

Austria should assess the proportionality of its restrictions on multidisciplinary activities. 

Cyprus  and  Malta  need  to  review  the  requirement  that  100 %  of  the  shares  of  a  company 
need to be held by professionals. 

Member  States  with  a  fragmented  system  of  the  profession  or  multiple  certification 
requirements, like Latvia and Poland, should reflect upon the effects of their system on the 
free movement of professionals and whether potential obstacles can be justified. 

Member States making professional certification mandatory for non-regulated professions or 
relying on other checks and balances, especially on the provision of specific services, should 
review the overall coherence and practical effects of this model to avoid it becoming a barrier 
for accessing the profession. 

Ireland should further consider the impact and necessity of recent changes, in particular the 
reserves of activities. 

12 

 
 
 II.2.   Engineers 

There are many similarities across Member States in their regulation of the profession of civil 
engineer.  The  same  broad  definitions  can  repeatedly  be  found  for  ‘scope  of  activities’  and 
many  Member  States  report  the  same  risks  and  pursue  the  same  general  interests  when 
regulating  the  profession.  However,  despite  this  convergence,  the  regulatory  approach 
towards the profession varies considerably from one Member State to another. 

Chart 3: Restrictiveness indicator: Civil engineers 

Source: European Commission, November 2016. 

Chart  3  shows  the  relative  position  of  Member  States  in  terms  of  restrictiveness  as  to  the 
access to and exercise of the profession of civil engineer, according to the new restrictiveness 
indicator. 

There  is  overall  agreement  that  services  provided  by  engineers  need  to  be  of  a  level  to 
guarantee  the  safety  of  constructions  and  of  the  public  and  guarantee  the  quality  of  the 
service provided. While in most Member States the regulation of the profession is considered 
as  the  necessary  approach  to  guarantee  safety,  other  Member  States  have  found  different 
ways  to  ensure  quality  or  to  safeguard  relevant  general  interest  objectives.  For  example,  in 
the Netherlands there is a regulation on construction standards, which ensures the quality of 
work performed. In Sweden, the principle of the responsibility of the client has traditionally 
been  of  major  importance,  together  with  checks  by  municipalities  of  work  performed.  As 
with  architects,  the  differences  between  the  two  models  may  be  less  significant  than  might 
appear where ‘non-regulating’ countries use certification of competences of engineers37 or an 
ad  hoc  evaluation  of  competences  or  experience  on  a  case-by-case  basis  as  a  condition  for 
allowing  engineers  to  provide  specific  services  by  (e.g.  submission  of  building  plans  or 
permits etc.). 

Among the regulating countries, certain Member States like Belgium, France and the United 
Kingdom, as regards chartered engineers, protect only the use of the professional title. 

In  most  countries  there  are  several  ways  the  profession  of  an  engineer  can  be  exercised, 
depending on either the limits of authorisations/permits/titles being granted and/or the various 
levels  of  responsibility  being  awarded.  This  is  the  case  at  least  in  Croatia,  the  Czech 
Republic,  Italy,  Finland,  Greece,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg, 
Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovenia,  Slovakia,  Spain  and  the  UK.  For  instance  Latvia 
has  the  most  specialised  regime,  with  about  80  types  of  certifications  possible  for  civil 
engineers in various areas of activities (engineering research or design or construction works 
management or construction supervision or construction expert examination). In Poland the 
activities  of  designing  and  construction  are  performed  either  by  two  different  types  of 

37  In  Estonia,  for  example,  certain  modes  of  pursuit  of  the  professional  activities  require  a  professional  certificate  (i.e.  a 
certificate at a certain level issued by the Qualifications Authority). 

13 

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5NLSEFRBEEEFIUKDKLTIEROHUPLSIBGSKLVMTPTHRESDECZITCYLUELATExercise requirementsOther entry requirementsQualification requirementsRegulatory approach 
 
 
                                                            
engineers  or  jointly  by  the  same  engineer  depending  on  the  qualification  held.  Moreover, 
depending  on 
the  qualification,  civil  engineers  can  carry  out 
designing/construction activities with restricted or full capacity. 

level  of 

the 

These  divergences  in  the  organisation  of  the  profession  are  also  reflected  in  reserved 
activities,  which  thus  also  vary  across  countries.  In  general,  reserved  activities  mainly 
concern  design  or  construction.  Austria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Italy,  Poland,  Portugal, 
Romania  and  Spain  operate  with  a  wide  scope  of  reserve  of  activities,  although  for  some 
those activities are shared with other professions. Malta has the particularity that the reserved 
activities are not listed in one act. Instead, references to the ‘Periti’ as the only professional 
that  can  perform  and  assume  responsibility  for  certain  activities  can  be  found  in  different 
legal acts. In Germany the reserve is limited to the submission of planning documents. 

Restrictions  on  shareholding  requirements  are  imposed  by  Austria,  Cyprus,  Germany, 
Malta, Slovakia and Spain. For instance, Cyprus and Malta require 100 % shareholding by 
professionals, where Austria, Germany and Slovakia require at least 50% of the shares to be 
held be professionals.  

In  Austria  the  exclusive  scope  of  the  activity  of  civil  engineering  firms  has  to  be  the 
provision  of  engineering  services  limiting  therefore  significantly  the  possibility  of  joint 
exercise with other professions. 

Some  14 Member  States  require  membership  with  the  professional  organisation  and  in 
16 Member States professional indemnity insurance is mandatory. 

On the cross-border mobility of engineers, the coexistence of unitary and fragmented systems 
might  create  barriers  for  civil  engineers  moving  from  a  country  with  a  unitary  system  to  a 
country  with a  fragmented system. For  instance, an engineer  coming  from a  country  where 
civil engineers are allowed to perform many different kinds of work in any sector would find 
it difficult in countries like Latvia or Romania to identify the sector of civil engineering he 
or she might be able to access and it may be difficult or even impossible to have access to all 
sectors without heavy compensatory measures. 

Recommendations 

Austria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Italy,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania  and  Spain  should 
reconsider the wide scope of reserved activities. 

Malta should clarify which activities are reserved to the ‘Periti’. 

Spain should re-assess the requirement for obtaining an authorisation from the professional 
organisation for certain projects/works. 

Cyprus  and  Malta  need  to  review  the  requirement  that  100 %  of  the  shares  of  a  company 
need to be held by professionals. 

Austria,  Germany  and  Slovakia  should  assess  the  proportionality  of  the  shareholding 
requirements. 

Austria should assess the restrictions on multidisciplinary activities. 

Member States making professional certification mandatory for non-regulated professions or 
relying on other checks and balances, especially on the provision of specific services, should 
review the overall coherence and practical effects of this model to avoid it becoming a barrier 
for accessing the profession. 

14 

 
 
Member  States  with  a  fragmented  system  of  the  profession  or  with  multiple  requirements 
depending  on  the  specific  activities pursued,  like  Latvia,  should  reflect  upon  the  effects  of 
their  system  on  the  free  movement  of  professionals  and  whether  potential  obstacles  can  be 
justified. 

II.3.   Accountants/tax advisers 

Accountants/tax advisers are a particularly diverse group of professions, such as accountants, 
certified  accountants  or  tax  advisers,  with  stark  differences  between  Member  States  as 
regards the organisation of professions in this area and as regards the respective regulation. 
One or several professions in this field are regulated in 19 Member States, either:  

  by  way  of  reserves  of  activities  and  protected  title  (Austria,  Belgium,  France, 

Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania);  

  by  reserves  of  activities  (Bulgaria,  Croatia,  the  Czech  Republic,  Hungary, 

Slovakia); or  

  by protecting the professional title only (Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, the UK).  

In the UK for instance, accountancy is a highly competitive sector and although entry to the 
profession without a  professional qualification is  theoretically possible, graduates holding a 
professional  title  have  a  considerable  competitive  advantage  over  other  candidates.  In 
nine Member  States,  namely  in  Cyprus,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  Lithuania,  Latvia, 
Slovenia,  Spain  and  Sweden,  the  profession  is  not  regulated  as  such.  Member  States 
generally justify regulation in the sector by the important role tax advisers/accountants play 
in  all  tax  systems  in  assisting  consumers  and  taxpayers  in  complying  with  their  tax 
obligations. 

Chart 4: Restrictiveness indicator: Accountants / tax advisers 

Source: European Commission, November 2016. 

Chart  4  shows  the  relative  position  of  Member  States  in  terms  of  restrictiveness  as  to  the 
access  to  and  exercise  of  the  profession  of  accountant/tax  adviser,  according  to  the  new 
restrictiveness  indicator.  The  indicator  does  not  take  into  account  the  regulation  of  the 
profession of auditor, which is regulated in all Member States based on Directive 2006/43/EC 
on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts. 

Some  Member  States  reserve  both  tax  advice  and  accounting  activities  (often  shared  with 
other  professionals,  for  instance  in  the  Czech  Republic,  France,38  Portugal,  Romania). 
Bulgaria  and  Luxembourg  reserve  only  accountancy,  i.e.  bookkeeping/drafting  of 

38 In France, tax advice involving complex matters is reserved for lawyers, but expert accountants may provide tax advice to 
their clients. Auditors and notaries may also provide tax advice if it is related to their activities. 

15 

 
 
 
                                                            
tax  advice  and 
consolidated  financial  statements,  while  Germany  reserves  only 
representation before the tax authorities. Romania has three different regulated professions in 
the sector, while Austria has four professions. 

Italy reserves certain rather straightforward payroll activities to accountants in a way which 
implies additional burden for small businesses. Croatia is currently reforming the profession 
of tax adviser, establishing a very wide range of activities either exclusively reserved to the 
profession or including simple tasks such as preparation of tax returns for citizens and small 
businesses.  While  France  reserves  bookkeeping  to  expert  accountants,  a  national  court 
recently  ruled  that  making  accounting  entries  electronically  before  approving  them  falls 
outside  the  scope  of  the  reserved  activities.  This  judgment,  however,  is  not  fully 
implemented. 

The  qualification  requirements  also  vary  considerably  between  Member  States.  The  total 
length of training varies between 3 years (Greece, the Czech Republic) and 8 years (France, 
Romania). 

According to the information in the regulated professions database, continuous professional 
development  is  required  in  Belgium,  Germany,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Malta,  Poland, 
Portugal, Romania and Slovakia. 

Mandatory registration with a professional body or in a professional register is provided for 
in 15 Member States, for instance in France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg. 

Professional  indemnity  insurance  is  mandatory  in  14 Member  States,  i.e.  in  Austria, 
Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Poland, 
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and the UK. 

In  many  instances  the  incompatibility  rules  or  multidisciplinary  restrictions  affecting 
accountants/tax advisers are actually laid down in the regulation of other professions, such as 
lawyers and auditors. 

Some  Member  States,  for  instance  Germany  and  France,  have  prohibitions  on  the  joint 
exercise  of  activities,  allowing  cooperation  only  with  a  limited  number  of  professions,  for 
instance  in  the  legal  or  accounting  sectors.  It  appears  that  Belgium  imposes  strict 
incompatibility rules prohibiting multidisciplinary activities and the simultaneous exercise of 
any other economic activity for accountancy professions in Belgium. 

Several  Member  States  (Germany,  Portugal  and  Romania)  also  impose  legal  form  and 
shareholding  requirements.  While  Germany  allows  professional  companies  to  perform 
activities related to tax advice under specific conditions, there is a lack of legal certainty as to 
the conditions under which professional companies established in other Member States may 
lawfully  provide  services  on  a  temporary  or  occasional  basis.  Belgium,  France  Germany, 
Ireland,  Malta,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania  and  Slovakia  require  at  least  50  %  of  the 
shares to be held by professionals.   

Other authorisation requirements include good repute and proof of no previous bankruptcy, 
or the obligation to reside on the national territory (Croatia). Restrictions requiring residence 
on the national territory appear to be in breach with Union law.    

Recommendations 

All Member States regulating professions in the sector should reconsider reserving simple 
tasks  such  as  payroll  activities  or  preparation  of  tax  declarations  to  highly  qualified 
professionals. 

16 

 
 
Croatia  should  (i)  re-assess  the  proportionality  of  the  extended  scope  of  the  activities 
reserved to tax advisers as part of the upcoming reform, in particular as regards the necessity 
to reserve activities such as drawing up tax returns; (ii) consider the possibility to share the 
activity of tax counselling with other professionals in the sector, in line with Case C-451/03.  

Croatia needs to remove the restrictions requiring residence on the national territory.  

Croatia  also  needs  to  take  fully  into  consideration  professional  qualifications  obtained 
abroad in line with the Professional Qualifications Directive. 

Italy  and  Romania  should  assess  the  consistency  of  the  reserved  activities  and  the 
distribution  between  the  multiple  regulated  professions  in  the  sector.  In  particular  Italy 
should  take  full  account  of  the  case-law  of  the  Court  of  Justice  in  Case  C-79/01  when 
defining activities reserved to professionals, in particular payroll activities. 

France should introduce clarity on the scope of the activities reserved to expert accountants, 
in  particular  as  regards  tasks  such  as  making  accounting  entries  electronically,  in  line  with 
national case-law and Case C-79/01. 

Belgium should  re-assess  the incompatibility rules prohibiting the simultaneous exercise of 
any  other  economic  activity  for  all  types  of  accountancy  professions,  especially  for  those 
where the conflict of interest could be prevented on a case-by-case basis. 

Germany  should  ensure  a  proper  follow-up  of  the  Case  C-342/14  in  order  to  ensure 
transparency and legal certainty, in particular as regards provision of tax consultancy services 
by companies established in other Member States. 

Belgium,  France,  Germany,  Ireland,  Malta,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania  and  Slovakia 
should assess the proportionality of the shareholding requirements. 

II.4.   Lawyers 

The  national  regulatory  approaches  concerning  lawyers  are  rather  uniform  across  Member 
States in the sense that the profession is regulated by reserves of activities and protected title 
in all Member States.39 

Chart 5: Restrictiveness indicator: Lawyers 

39 Based on the similarities in regulating the profession, notably by protecting the professional title, lawyers benefit from two 
specific directives, namely as regards the possibility to provide services on a temporary or occasional basis under the home 
country professional title (Directive 77/249/EEC), or as regards the possibility to establish on a permanent basis in another 
Member State under the home country professional title (Directive 98/5/EC). Whereas these two directives do not define the 
activities,  reserved  to  the  profession  in  general,  they  refer  to  ‘activities  of  lawyers’,   such  as  activities  relating  to  the 
representation of a client in legal proceedings or before public authorities, as well as legal advice. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Source: European Commission, November 2016. 

Chart  5  shows  the  relative  position  of  Member  States  in  terms  of  restrictiveness  as  to  the 
access  to  and  exercise  of  the  profession  of  lawyer,  according  to  the  new  restrictiveness 
indicator. 

Given  the  different  activities  of  the  profession,  e.g.  representation  in  court,  legal  advice, 
drawing  up  legal  documents,  Member  States  have  adopted  different  approaches  as  to  the 
extent of activities reserved to lawyers. 

All Member States reserve to lawyers activities related to the representation of clients before 
judicial  authorities,  although  how  this  is  actually  done  may  vary  (the  activity  is  sometimes 
shared  with  other  legal  professions).  Spain,  for  instance,  regulates  two  professions  in  the 
sector: abogados and procuradores. However, it reserves certain activities exclusively for the 
latter,  such  as  technical  representation  of  clients  or  communication  of  documents  to  the 
courts, whereas abogados are equally qualified to perform these activities and are subject to 
similar  professional  conduct  rules.  In  the  UK,  England  and  Wales,  Northern  Ireland  and 
Scotland  have  specific  rules  for  the  professions  of  solicitor  and  barrister  or  advocates  and 
reserve  to  those  two  categories  a  wide  range  of  activities  such  as  the  right  of  audience, 
conduct of litigation, reserved instrument activities, probate activities, notarial activities and 
the administration of oaths. 

Legal  advice  is  reserved  to  lawyers  in  several  Member  States,  such  as  France,  Germany, 
Hungary,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania  and  Slovakia.  In  that  context,  the  lack  of  clarity 
about the precise content of this reserved activity may lead to difficulties in areas such as the 
provision  of  online  legal  consultations  and  digital  automation  of  legal  documents  by  non-
lawyers.  Although  technological  developments  have  reduced  to  a  certain  extent  the 
information  asymmetry  between  lawyers  and  consumers,  with  legal  information  such  as 
legislation and case-law widely accessible on the internet, in Bulgaria a draft law from 2015 
suggests  reserving  to  lawyers  legal  consultations  and  representation  before  a  number  of 
administrative authorities. 

In  view  of  their  particular  role,  the  rules  on  the  access  to  and  the  pursuit  of  the  legal 
profession  are  among  the  most  stringent  in  the  business  services  sector.  In  terms  of 
qualification,  higher  education  is  required  in  the  large  majority  of  Member  States  (a  law 
degree  being  compulsory),  followed  by  a  mandatory  traineeship  and/or  additional 
professional  experience  and  bar  examination.  The  total  duration  of  the  training  varies 
between 3 years (Ireland) and 9 years (Slovenia). It appears, however, that in some Member 
States  (Greece,  Italy),  training  and  experience  obtained  abroad  are  not  duly  taken  into 

18 

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5LTSENLBEEEFIITLVBGESDKFRMTPTATROHUUKIEELSICYCZLUPLSKDEHRExercise requirementsOther entry requirementsQualification requirementsRegulatory approach 
 
 
account when allowing access to legal traineeships for lawyers.40 Recently, Spain introduced 
new rules on the qualification of lawyers, but clarity is lacking regarding the registration of 
graduates who started their studies before the reform entered into force. 

Certain  Member  States  impose  additional  professional  qualification  requirements  (e.g. 
additional  professional  experience)  in  order  to  practise  before  highest  courts  (Belgium, 
Bulgaria, France, Germany and Greece). In some of these countries, e.g. Belgium, France 
and  Germany,  lawyers  practising  before  the  supreme  courts  are  also  subject  to  additional 
authorisation requirements and the access conditions for lawyers from other Member States 
practising under their home country title remain unclear. 

Mandatory  continuous  professional  development  is  provided  for  in  most  Member  States, 
except  for  the  Czech  Republic,  Greece,  Malta,  Slovakia,  Slovenia  and  Spain  where  it  is 
voluntary.  Despite  the  extensive  case-law  on  recognition  of  qualifications,41  mutual 
recognition  of  lawyers’  cross-border  continuing  professional  development  appears  to  be 
problematic, especially for lawyers wishing to benefit from the rights granted to them under 
the two Lawyers’ Directives. 

All  Member  States  impose  compulsory  registration  with  a  professional  body  or  in  a 
professional register. In this regard, recent developments can be observed in some countries, 
such  as  Ireland  and  the  UK,  leading  to  the  separation  of  legal  regulators  from  the 
representative bodies. 
Most  Member  States  impose  strict  incompatibility  rules  and  multidisciplinary  restrictions,42 
as well as legal form and shareholding requirements. These requirements have to be assessed 
considering the scope of the reserves of activities. Whereas such restrictions may be justified 
for activities related to representation in court, their cumulative effects appear more stringent 
where other activities are also reserved to lawyers. 

In  this regard, all  Member States have either a general  rule to  avoid conflict of interests or 
detailed  incompatibility  rules  prohibiting  the  exercise  of  certain  activities  such  as  trade  or 
salaried employment, except for those explicitly allowed (e.g. teaching or research). In Italy, 
for instance, it is not possible for lawyers to practise simultaneously the profession of patent 
agent,  although  the  two  professions  have  similar  professional  conduct  rules  and  share 
activities. 

Multidisciplinary restrictions range from total prohibition (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic) to 
allowing  certain  multidisciplinary  activities  with  a  limited  number  of  professions  (France, 
Germany,  the  Netherlands).  In  Estonia,  lawyers  may  participate  in  the  management  of  a 
company  where  such  participation  is  compatible  with  the  professional  activities  of  an 
‘advokaat’ and cannot compromise the lawyer’s independence. 
A  limited  number  of  Member  States  allow  involvement  of  non-lawyers  in  law  firms.43  The 
UK (England and Wales specifically) introduced the possibility for solicitors to participate in 
alternative business structures (ABS), allowing non-lawyer ownership and multidisciplinary 
practices. Non-lawyer ownership of companies is also possible in Spain (up to 25 %) and to a 

40 See Case C-313/01 Morgenbesser, allowing legal traineeships to be undertaken by law graduates in any Member State, 
following an assessment of the qualification obtained abroad. 
41 Case C-340/89 Vlassopoulou. 
42 See Case C-309/99 Wouters. 
43 In this regard, Directive 98/5/EC allows Member States to impose certain limitations on the form of the grouping or the 
shareholding requirements of law firms, but only to the extent they are justified, necessary and proportionate, following a 
case-by-case  assessment.  This  means  that  such  requirements  have  to  be  read  in  conjunction  with  Article  59  of  the 
Professional Qualifications Directive, covering all regulated professions. 

19 

 
 
                                                            
certain extent in Denmark. In Germany, more than 50 % of the shares of the company have 
to be held by lawyers (only other legal or accounting professionals may be shareholders). In 
February 2016 the German Constitutional Court declared that the prohibition of professional 
partnership  with  physicians  and  pharmacists  was  unconstitutional.  In  Finland,  while  the 
shares in limited liability companies must be owned by advocates, the Bar Association may 
grant  an  exemption  in  specific  cases.  Ordinary  partnerships  are  generally  allowed  and  in 
many  Member  States  the  exercise  of  the  profession  is  also  possible  under  the  form  of  a 
professional company. A number of countries also allow lawyers to use the form of a limited 
liability company, for instance Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France and Germany. 

Professional  liability  insurance  is  mandatory  in  all  Member  States,  except  for  Greece  and 
Latvia, where it is voluntary. In many cases this obligation covers all activities related to the 
practice of the profession, including cross-border services provided in another Member State. 
Thus,  an  insurance  policy  may  cover  the  entire  territory  of  the  EU  on  the  basis  of  a  single 
premium  (e.g.  France,  Spain),  facilitating  the  mobility  of  professionals.  There  are  also 
differences in the minimum coverage and the corresponding fees. For example, the costs are 
much  higher  in  the  UK  than  in  other  Member  States,  due  to  the  extensive  scope  of  the 
reserved activities and the specific nature of the UK market.44 

Apart  from  the  requirements  listed  above,  most  Member  States  require  EU  citizenship,  a 
clean criminal record and taking an oath to follow the professional conduct and legal rules. It 
remains  unclear  whether  Slovenia  allows  EU  citizens  qualified  in  Slovenia  to  practise  the 
profession  under  the  Slovenian  title,  due  to  the  requirement  for  Slovenian  citizenship. 
Cyprus imposes a residence requirement in order to practise the profession, which appears to 
be  in  breach  of  Union  law  and  undermines  the  effectiveness  of  the  Lawyers’  Directives.45 
Italy  imposed  recently  a  requirement  to  have  at  least  five  cases  per  year  as  proof  of 
compliance with a general requirement of continuous and regular exercise of the profession. 
In Croatia a lawyer who is not practising for more than 6 months would be deprived of the 
right  to  exercise  the  profession,  which  is  particularly  problematic  for  lawyers  wishing  to 
establish or provide services abroad. 

Recommendations 

All Member States reserving legal advice should clarify the scope of the reserves so as to 
facilitate the provision of legal consultancy services by lawyers or other service providers, in 
particular for online services. 

All Member States should assess legal form and shareholding requirements, incompatibility 
rules and multidisciplinary restrictions, in particular taking into account the proportionality of 
these  restrictions  in  relation  to  core  principles,  such  as  the  independence  of  the  profession, 
and  to  the  corresponding  supervisory  arrangements.  In  addition,  consideration  should  be 
given  to  the  cumulative  effect  of  such  requirements  in  cases  where  their  effects  might  be 
accentuated in the case of extensive reserves of activities (e.g. where legal advice is also part 
of the reserved activities). 

44 The restrictiveness of this requirement was singled out in the study on the Evaluation of the Legal Framework for the Free 
Movement of Lawyers, see http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/qualifications/docs/studies/2013-lawyers/report_en.pdf. 
45  According  to  settled  case-law,  modern  methods  of  transport  and  telecommunications  enable  lawyers  to  maintain  the 
necessary contacts with clients and the judicial authorities. The objective pursued can be achieved by imposing on the lawyer 
obligations which restrict the pursuit of his activities to a lesser extent, by requiring the lawyer providing services to have an 
address for service at the chambers of a local lawyer, where notifications from the judicial authority in question could be 
duly served. 

20 

 
 
                                                            
Cyprus  should  review  the  rule  on  a  residency  requirement  to  the  extent  applicable  to  EU 
nationals  seeking  access  to  the  profession  in  Cyprus,  whereas  Slovenia  should  remove  the 
nationality requirement for EU nationals qualified in Slovenia. 

Bulgaria  should  re-assess  the  necessity  of  reserving  to  lawyers  legal  advice  and 
representation of citizens before administrative authorities under its new draft law. 

Italy should clarify the requirements restricting the pursuit of the profession, such as the wide 
scope of the incompatibility rule, especially for professions with similar professional conduct 
rules,  such  as  patent  agents.  The  justification  for  and  proportionality  of  the  recently 
introduced requirement of having at least five cases per year should be re-assessed. 

Croatia  should  review  the  provision  according  to  which  a  lawyer  not  practising  for  more 
than 6 months would be deprived of the right to exercise the profession. 

Belgium,  France  and  Germany  should  introduce  more  transparency  and  review  the 
proportionality of access rules for lawyers wishing to practise before their respective supreme 
courts, and in particular clarify the rules applicable to European lawyers. 

Germany  should  review  the  need  to  maintain  age  restrictions  for  practising  before  the 
Federal  Court  of  Justice  (Bundesgerichtshof),  in  contrast  to  measures  which  appear  to  be 
more suitable to achieve the objectives pursued, such as professional experience. 

Spain needs to review the scope of the activities reserved to procuradores and in particular 
whether certain activities such as technical representation or communication of documents to 
the  courts  can  be  shared  with  abogados.  Spain  should  also  issue  clear  guidelines  and 
instructions regarding the registration of lawyers after the entry into force of the new system 
of qualification. 

The  UK  should  assess  the  possibilities  for  adopting  a  more  flexible  approach  as  regards 
professional  liability  insurance  obligations  so  as  to  reduce  the  financial  burden  for 
professionals. 

Greece and Italy should ensure that training and experience obtained abroad are duly taken 
into  account  so 
line  with  Case  
C-313/01. 

lawyers  can  access 

traineeships 

legal 

that 

in 

II.5.  Patent/trademark agents 
The profession of patent/trademark agent46 is regulated per se in 22 Member States, while in 
a further two the relevant activities are expressly reserved to lawyers. In most countries the 
profession is regulated by way of reserves of activities and protected title (Austria, Bulgaria, 
Estonia,  France,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania, 
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden  and the UK). Several countries protect only the professional title 
(Finland,  Ireland  and  Sweden)  while  seven  countries  regulate  the  profession  only  by 
reserves  of  activities  (Belgium,  the  Czech  Republic,  Croatia,  Germany,  Hungary, 
Lithuania, Slovakia).47 Finally, Cyprus and Greece reserve the activities to lawyers only. 

46 In a number of Member States patent agents are called patent attorneys (for instance in AT and DE ‘Patentanwälte’). 
47 The existence of the qualification of European Patent Agent based on the European Patent Convention signed by all EU 
Member  States  should  also  be  mentioned.  This  qualification  allows  the  professional  to  use  the  mentioned  title  when 
representing before the European Patent Office. However, this qualification does not allow the exercise of the profession of 
patent agent in those signatory countries which regulate the profession. 

21 

 
 
                                                            
The reasons invoked by the Member States for regulating the profession are based: (a) on the 
protection of consumers and of recipients of the service (e.g. the right holders) and (b) on the 
integrity  of  the  protection  mechanisms  and  justice  systems  dealing  with  these  issues.  Thus, 
Member States have invoked as a reason for regulation the fact that patent/trademark agents 
deal with highly complex intellectual property laws and technical aspects of innovations, and 
that  their  improper  handling  would  damage  the  position  of  their  clients  and  the  overall 
handling and protection of intellectual property rights in their country. 

Chart 6: Restrictiveness indicator: Patent / trademark agents 

Source: European Commission, November 2016. 

Chart  6  shows  the  relative  position  of  Member  States  in  terms  of  restrictiveness  as  to  the 
access  to  and  exercise  of  the  profession  of  patent/trademark  agent,  according  to  the  new 
restrictiveness indicator. 

The scope of reserves of activities differs between the Member States. Some Member States 
(Bulgaria,  Estonia,  Hungary,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Slovenia  and  the  UK)  reserve 
exclusively for patent/trademark agents the activity of counselling and representation before 
the  Patent  Office  or  other  administrative  authorities.  Lithuania  reserves  it  only  for  foreign 
persons  that  are  not  permanent  residents  (or  are  not  established  as  legal  persons)  in  an  EU 
Member  State  and  Spain  for  representation  of  non-EU  nationals.  In  Poland,  the  reserved 
activities  of  counselling,  representation  before  the  Patent  Office  and  before  administrative 
courts for industrial property aspects other than trademarks are exclusively reserved to patent 
agents.  

The representation before the courts in intellectual property matters is reserved exclusively to 
patent  agents  in  Germany  and  Hungary.  Several  countries  allow  for  this  activity  to  be 
shared  with  other  professionals  like  lawyers,  notaries  or  legal  advisers  (Austria,  Bulgaria, 
the Czech Republic, Estonia, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Slovakia). Other Member States 
reserve  the  activity  of  representation  in  court  in  general,  including  on  intellectual  property 
matters,  to  lawyers  or  other  legal  professionals,  but  not  to  patent  agents  (for  instance, 
Belgium, Spain, France, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia). 

The  activity  of  drawing  up  legal  documents  on  intellectual  property  matters  is  reserved  in 
several  Member  States  (Austria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Romania,  Slovakia,  Poland)  to 
patent  agents  and  other  legal  professionals.  However  Hungary  reserves  it  exclusively  to 
patent agents. 

Hungary  also  reserves  to  patent  agents  the  activity  of  performing  research  or  providing 
advice in connection with industrial property rights. 

22 

 
 
 
In  certain  countries  not  regulating  the  profession  of  patent/trademark  agent  per  se,  i.e.  in 
Cyprus and Greece, the relevant activities are, however, reserved to lawyers. 

The  qualification  requirements  also  vary  considerably  between  Member  States.  While  all 
Member  States  require  university  degrees  with  a  duration  between  3  and  5  years,  certain 
Member States, namely Austria, Croatia, Hungary and Ireland, require specialised studies 
(technical or sciences). The UK requires specialised courses on patent and trademark law and 
there are only a very small number of courses approved by the registration authority. 

Prior professional experience is required in most of the Member States but the duration varies 
between  2  years  (Bulgaria),  5  years  (Croatia,  Lithuania)  or  even  7.5  years  (Austria). 
Traineeship  under  the  supervision  of  a  patent  agent  is  required  in  certain  Member  States 
(Belgium,  Germany,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  the  Netherlands,  Poland, 
and the UK). In most Member States an exam has to be passed. 

This means that the total length of required education could vary between 3 years in Portugal 
(where  no  traineeship  or  prior  experience  are  required)  and  7  years  (Germany),  or  even 
12.5  years (Austria). This needs to be seen in the light of the fact that the activities can be 
performed, for instance, also by lawyers without the need to specialise in intellectual property 
law. 

Professional insurance is required in 12 Member States and some also restrict the conditions 
under which the insurance is provided (for instance the UK). 

Several Member States impose restrictions on company form and shareholding requirements. 
For  instance,  Austria  requires  a  professional  firm  to  be  owned  100 %  by  patent/trademark 
agents.  Other  countries,  like  Romania,  allow  the  establishment  of  either  a  professional 
company  (100 %  owned  by  patent/trademark  agents)  or  a  regular  company  (with  non-
professionals).  Hungary  regulates  both  professional  partnerships  (with  100 %  shares  to  be 
held  by  patent  agents)  and  professional  companies  (with  75 %  shares  to  be  held  by  patent 
agents). France does not lay down a shareholding requirement but requires instead that the 
decision-making  power  in  the  company  must  be  with  patent/trademark  agents.  Greece  and 
Cyprus require that 100 % of the partners are lawyers. Germany and Poland require at least 
50% of the shares to be held by professionals.     

Several Member States also prohibit completely the exercise of the profession of patent agent 
together with other professions (for instance, Austria and Hungary), while others allow the 
joint exercise only with legal or accounting professions (Estonia, Germany).   

Concerning the cross-border provision of services, in a number of Member States Directive 
2013/55/EU48 has not yet been transposed into national law on patent/trademark agents. For 
instance,  Germany  and  the  UK,  by  establishing  a  limited  list  of  qualifications  to  be 
recognised, do not allow for recognition of the professional qualification of patent/trademark 
agent from some EU Member States. 

Slovakia  requires  a  specific  recognition  procedure  for  holders  of  diplomas  from  other  EU 
Member States to access the (non-regulated) profession of assistant patent attorney.  

48  Directive  2013/55/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  November  2013  amending  Directive 
2005/36/EC  on  the  recognition  of  professional  qualifications  and  Regulation  (EU)  No  1024/2012  on  administrative 
cooperation through the Internal Market Information System ( ‘the IMI Regulation’ ) 

23 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Recommendations 

Slovakia should ensure that the recognition procedure it applies to foreign diploma holders 
seeking  access  to  the  profession  of  assistant  patent  attorney  complies  with  the  TFEU 
provisions on free movement of workers and non-discrimination and with the relevant case-
law. 

Germany and the UK should transpose as soon as possible Directive 2013/55/EU and ensure 
compliance with EU law on patent agents. 

Austria, Germany and the UK should reconsider the various layers of regulatory measures, 
for  instance  requiring  multiple  years  of  professional  experience  or  professional  training  in 
addition  to  basic  training  requirements  and  try  to  offer  alternative  ways  to  obtain  the 
qualification. 

Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania and Sweden should re-assess the condition of prior professional 
experience as a requirement to access the profession of patent/trademark agent. 

The UK should assess insurance requirements to ensure they are not overly restrictive. 

Austria,  Estonia,  Hungary,  Poland  and  the  UK  should  assess  the  scope  of  reserves  of 
activities for patent/trademark agents. Cyprus and Greece should assess the proportionality 
of the measures reserving activities related to industrial property solely to lawyers. 

Austria and Hungary should assess the proportionality of prohibitions on the joint exercise 
of the profession of patent/trademark patent with other professions. 

Austria,  Germany,  Hungary  and  Poland  should  assess  the  proportionality  of  the 
shareholding requirements. 

II.6.   Real estate agents 

Regulatory approaches in the real estate sector vary significantly across countries. While in 
some Member States the profession has been regulated for a long time (e.g. in Austria it has 
been regulated since 1973), in others regulation was introduced more recently (e.g. in 2011 in 
Ireland).  Three  countries  seem  to  intend  to  regulate  access  to  this  profession  (the  Czech 
Republic,  Germany  and  Slovakia).  By  contrast,  the  Netherlands,  Poland  and  Portugal 
have recently opted for deregulation. 

Chart 7: Restrictiveness indicator: Real estate agents 

Source: European Commission, November 2016. 

Chart  7  shows  the  relative  position  of  Member  States  in  terms  of  restrictiveness  as  to  the 
access  to  and  exercise  of  the  profession  of  real  estate  agent,  according  to  the  new 
restrictiveness indicator. 

24 

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5BGCZDEEEELESLTLVMTNLPLROUKPTHRFISKHUIEFRLUDKATITSECYBESIExercise requirementsOther entry requirementsQualification requirementsRegulatory approach 
 
 
The  profession  is  regulated  in  14  Member  States:  Austria,  Belgium,  Croatia,  Cyprus, 
Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Slovakia49, Slovenia 
and  Sweden.  Most  countries  regulate  by  means  of  the  reserves  of  activities.  Cyprus, 
Belgium, Denmark, Finland,50 Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg and Slovenia regulate by way 
of a reserve of activities alongside the protection of a title. In  Spain there is some regional 
regulation of real estate agents’ activities. 

Most countries have similar activities reserved for real estate agents. These consist essentially 
in  acting  as  an  intermediary  between  buyers  and  sellers  of  real  property  including  giving 
advice. However, in some instances real estate agents perform tasks in addition to bringing 
the parties to the transaction together and counselling them and some of these activities are 
rather  complex.  For  instance,  in  Nordic  countries  licenced  real  estate  agents  provide  legal 
advice  within  their  level  of  expertise  (e.g.  in  Sweden  licenced  real  estate  agents  assist  in 
drawing up appropriate documentation  or  give advice on contract clauses  In  Finland,  most 
transactions involving a real estate agent concern the sale and purchase of shares in a housing 
cooperative without separate endorsement by an official notary. Property appraisal/evaluation 
is mentioned for Denmark and Italy51, while in Austria the representation in front of public 
authorities/courts  (as  far  as  this  is  not  reserved  to  lawyers)  as  well  as  carrying  out  public 
auctions  of  properties  is  reserved  to  real  estate  agents.  In  Belgium  and  France,  real  estate 
agents are involved in co-ownership management and property management activities under 
the role of syndic. 

In  many  cases  the  activities  of  real  estate  agents  are  shared  with  lawyers  and/or  notaries. 
However,  in  a  few  cases  at  least  certain  real  estate  brokerage  activities  appear  to  be 
exclusively  reserved  to  qualified  estate  agents  (Austria,  Cyprus,  Ireland,  Luxembourg, 
Sweden and Slovenia). 

Most countries require education of a duration of around 2-3 years that may also need to be 
supplemented  by  a  traineeship  and/or  work  experience  and/or  exam.  In  some  of  the  most 
stringent cases, such regulation can partly be explained by certain more complex tasks being 
entrusted to estate agents (e.g. in Austria, Denmark and Sweden). This stands in contrast to 
countries like Croatia, Finland, Hungary and Italy, which have relatively low qualification 
requirements. For instance, in Hungary the duration of the education programme is 6 months 
only,  while  in  Finland  there  is  only  an  examination,  but  no  specific  training  or  previous 
experience  is  required.  In  Croatia  and  Italy  there  is  mandatory  examination  open  to  the 
holders of high school diploma and for Italy, completion of an 80-hour training course. 

In most cases there are alternative ways to obtain required qualifications. Only in  Belgium, 
Croatia, Cyprus, Italy, Finland and Sweden does there appear to be only one pathway to 
obtaining qualification as a real estate agent 

Both  the  countries  with  a  relatively  low  level  of  regulation  and  those  with  higher 
requirements  have  additional  means  to  ensure  consumer  protection  and  fraud  prevention. 
While  most  countries  require  compulsory  registration  in  professional  or  state  bodies  and 
mandatory  professional  liability  insurance,  others  also  require  professionals  to  prove  the 
absence  of  criminal  convictions  and/or  good  character,52  or  provide  a  financial 

49 Slovakia does not consider this profession regulated given that only trade activities are regulated. Please refer to the Staff 
working document accompanying this Communication for more information. 
50 While in Finland the title is protected, the law also requires that responsible managers and at least half of those engaged in 
agency’s work have required qualifications. 
51 In Hungary, Latvia and Lithuania, immovable property appraisers/valuators are regulated as a separate profession. 
52 Austria, Slovenia, Hungary and Italy. 

25 

 
 
                                                            
standing/financial guarantee.53 Mandatory continuous professional development requirements 
are not significant in terms of duration and were found to exist only in five countries.54 

A few countries specifically prohibit the pursuit of certain incompatible activities. However, 
in some instances this prohibition goes beyond a mere general ban on conflict of interest (e.g. 
Italy and Sweden). For instance, in  Italy, real estate agents are prohibited from any public 
employment  (unless  part-time)  or  other  activities  as  a  self-employed  person  or  an 
entrepreneur.  In  Slovenia  the  exercise  of  real  estate  activities  is  subject  to  a  citizenship 
requirement.55  

On  the  other  hand,  in  countries  which  do  not  regulate  the  profession,  the  interests  of 
consumers are protected by other means such as general legislation on consumer protection, 
civil  and  criminal  law  and  professional  conduct  rules.  Self-regulation  and  voluntary 
certification systems serve as another alternative to regulation. This is the case, for instance, 
in the Czech Republic, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland and the UK. 

Recommendations 

Austria,  Cyprus,  Ireland,  Luxembourg,  Slovenia  and  Sweden  should  take 
into 
consideration  the  possibility  of  opening  to  other  professionals  the  activities  currently 
exclusively reserved to estate agents. 

Austria,  Belgium,  Cyprus,  Denmark,  France,  Ireland,  Slovakia  and  Sweden  should 
evaluate to what extent the duration of mandatory qualification requirements is indispensable 
in view of the tasks pursued by estate agents and the objectives of regulation. 

Belgium,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Finland,  Italy  and  Sweden  should  consider  the  possibility  of 
alternative pathways to access the profession. 

Belgium should evaluate the need for shareholding and voting rights restrictions. 

Slovenia should reconsider its citizenship requirement for real estate agents. 

As  part  of  the  forthcoming  reform,  the  Czech  Republic  should  avoid  multiple  layers  of 
regulation and assess in detail whether the objective of consumer protection could be ensured 
by less restrictive means, such as introducing a protected title. 

Germany should monitor ongoing debates to introduce new regulation and base any change 
in regulation on solid proportionality assessments. 

Italy  should  evaluate  the  necessity  and  proportionality  of  prohibitions  on  incompatible 
activities. 

Spain should review existing regional regulations, as they could lead to confusion regarding 
access to and exercise of this profession and could create obstacles to mobility. 

Slovakia  should  remove  the  requirement  for  the  holders  of  qualifications  from  other  EU 
Member States to undergo a procedure for academic recognition of diploma. 

II.7.   Tourist guides 

The profession of tourist guide is regulated in 14 Member States, namely Austria, Bulgaria, 
Croatia, Cyprus, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, 

53 Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland and Hungary. 
54 Belgium, France, Ireland, Sweden and Slovenia. 
55 The mutual recognition of qualification obtained in other Member States is provided for, but foreign nationals who have 
obtained qualifications in Slovenia do not appear to be covered by those rules. 

26 

 
 
                                                            
Slovenia  and  Spain,  with  quite  some  significant  differences  as  to  the  intensity  of  the 
regulation.  Regulation  is  more  prevalent  in  the  southern  part  of  Europe  and  around  the 
Mediterranean. It is usually based on considerations of cultural, historical, archaeological and 
artistic heritage and its proper appreciation. 

Both the tourism industry itself and consumers’ behaviour have evolved in recent years and 
today  knowledge  on  cultural  and  heritage  sites  is  available  increasingly  through  other, 
including digital, information sources. The justification for and proportionality of regulation 
of tourist guides needs to be assessed carefully in order to ensure that restrictions are limited 
to what is necessary to prevent damage to the cultural richness of a Member State. 

Chart 8: Restrictiveness indicator: Tourist guides 

Source: European Commission, November 2016. 

Chart  8  shows  the  relative  position  of  Member  States  in  terms  of  restrictiveness  as  to  the 
access to and exercise of the profession of tourist guide, according to the new restrictiveness 
indicator. 

Even  between  the  regulating  Member  States  there  are  significant  differences.  Whereas 
Bulgaria,  Malta,  Spain  and  Slovenia  provide  for  a  reserve  of  activities  together  with  title 
protection, most regulating Member States regulate the profession with a reserve of activities 
only.56  

The scope of the reserved activities differs considerably between Member States. In Austria 
and  Bulgaria  there  is  a  very  wide  range  of  activities  reserved  to  the  holders  of  specific 
professional  qualifications,  covering  also  guidance  of  persons  to  show  and  explain  to  them 
the social and political situation in national and international contexts, guidance of persons at 
sporting  and  social  events  and  escorting  tourists  from  the  airport  to  their  hotel.  It  must, 
however, be stressed that a reserve of activity is a restriction that should be limited to what is 
strictly necessary to protect a general public interest. 

Furthermore, the creation of reserves of activities, when regulated at regional level in federal 
or regional states, deserves particular attention if the scope of the activities is geographically 
restricted  within  one  Member  State,  like  in  Croatia,  Italy  and  Spain.  As  a  consequence, 
professionals  may  have  to  obtain  different  qualifications  and  authorisations  inside  a  single 
Member  State  if  they  want  to  exercise  their  activities  in  more  than  one  region.  Such 

56 For more information on the regulation of this profession and of linked professions like tour manager or travel agent, see 
the report drawn up as part of the mutual evaluation exercise. 

27 

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.0BECZDEDKEEFIIELULVNLSEUKPLLTFRHRATCYSKITHUROPTELESSIMTBGExercise requirementsOther entry requirementsQualification requirementsRegulatory approach 
 
 
                                                            
differences render access to and the exercise of the profession more complicated57 and might 
raise issues of compatibility with Union law. 

Professional  qualifications  required  differ  between  regulating  Member  States.  The  level  of 
qualification varies from vocational training to an academic qualification, ranging in length 
from one year in Cyprus to 5 years in Italy. 

In  Greece,  while  a  diploma  from  a  school  of  tourist  guides  was  initially  required,  recently 
holders  of  specific  generic  diplomas,  such  as  diplomas  in  archaeology,  history,  social 
anthropology, ethnology, etc., may obtain a tourist guide licence once they have successfully 
completed a two-month specific training course. In Italy the qualifying examination includes 
a written test, which covers the historic and artistic heritage of a specific area of a region and 
an interview. In Italy and Spain, several different regulations exist depending on the region 
or  autonomous  region  regulating  the  profession  and  requirements.  Most  Member  States 
indicated the need for very specific knowledge linked to the country such as knowledge of its 
history and art (e.g. Cyprus, Slovenia). 

Croatia, Slovenia and Spain organise state exams for the profession of tourist guides. 

No legal form or shareholding or management control restrictions exist for this profession. 

Having  a  list  of  sites  where  working  as  a  guide  is  reserved  to  holders  of  specific 
qualifications and laying down rules on how to obtain such specific qualifications might also 
create unjustified restrictions if the actual reasons justifying the listing for each site have not 
been  assessed  and  if  exams  are  only  organised every  two  years,  as  seems  to  be  the  case  in 
Italy.  In  other  Member  States,  like  France,  only  qualified  tourist  guides  are  admitted  at  a 
certain  number  of  historic  monuments.  In  Croatia,  the  law  specifically  states  that  expert 
guide services at a museum, gallery, protected natural area, archaeological site, etc. are not to 
be considered as activities of tourist guides. This might lead to a fragmentation of the market 
and  put  a  significant  burden  on  service  providers  from  another  Member  State  who  are 
accompanying tourists through different parts of a country and do not limit their provision of 
service to a particular site. 

Recommendations 

All  regulating  Member  States  should  consider  the  justification  and  proportionality  of 
regulation of the profession. 

Austria,  Bulgaria,  Malta  and  Slovenia  should  consider  introducing  a  more  precise 
definition of the reserved activities in view of the very wide or undefined scope of reserved 
activities. 

Croatia and Italy should: (i) clarify the regulatory framework governing tourist guides given 
the diverging regional regulations which seem to hinder access to the market and which affect 
national service providers as well as those providing temporary services; (ii) review the list of 
sites  reserved  to  holders  of  specific  qualifications  and  consider  the  proportionality  of  each 
reservation. 

57  See  also  the  Commission  staff  working  document  on  the  result  of  the  performance  checks  of  the  internal  market  for 
services  SWD(2012)147  accompanying  the  Communication  from  the  Commission  on  the  implementation  of  the  Services 
Directive COM(2012)261. 

28 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Spain  should:  (i)  review  access  to  the  activity  of  tourist  guides,  which  currently  differs 
between autonomous regions, limiting access to and exercise of the profession for established 
service  providers  as  well  as  for  those  providing  temporary  services;  (ii)  ensure  nationwide 
validity of authorisations. 

29