REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the implementation of certain new elements introduced by 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')
Date: 2020-05-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: administrative cooperation, free movement of workers, freedom to provide services, information system, national implementing measure, professional qualifications, recognition of diplomas, recognition of vocational training qualifications, right of establishment, single market

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 11.5.2020  COM(2020) 191 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the implementation of certain new elements introduced by 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') {SWD(2020) 79 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2 

1. 
2.  MODERNISING THE RULES TO FACILITATE SAFE MOBILITY IN THE 21ST 
CENTURY ................................................................................................................................. 3 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION IN THE MEMBER STATES ......................................................... 7 

3.1 

3.2 

3.3 

Support for transposition ............................................................................................. 7 

Transposition delays and enforcement action ............................................................. 7 

Implementation in the Member States: state of play ................................................... 9 

Transposition of harmonised minimum training requirements for ‘sectoral’ professions .. 9 

Common training principles (frameworks or tests) .......................................................... 12 

General system of recognition and temporary service provision ...................................... 13 

Partial access ..................................................................................................................... 15 

Language controls ............................................................................................................. 16 

Traineeships ...................................................................................................................... 17 

Internal Market Information System ................................................................................. 17 

European Professional Card and the alert mechanism ...................................................... 18 

Access to online information, procedures and reducing red tape ..................................... 20 

Transparency obligations .................................................................................................. 22 

4.  RESULTS OF THE SPECIAL UPGRADING PROGRAMME FOR ROMANIAN 
NURSES ................................................................................................................................... 26 

5.  RECENT DEVELOPMENTS .......................................................................................... 27 

6.  CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 29 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

The  aim  of  Directive  2005/36/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of 
7 September  2005  on  the  recognition  of  professional  qualifications1  was  to  simplify  the 
regimes  for  mutual  recognition  of  professional  qualifications  by  consolidating  the  specific 
directives  adopted  since  the  1960s.  In  its  Communication  of  27 October  20112,  the 
Commission  identified  the  need  to  further  modernise  EU  law  in  this  area.  As  a  result,  it 
adopted amending Directive 2013/55/EU3 on 20 November 2013, which brought in a number 
of  changes  to  the  framework  governing  the  recognition  of  professional  qualifications  to 
modernise and facilitate the safe mobility of professionals across Europe4. 

This  report  is  based  on  Article 60(2)  of  the  revised  Directive.  It  covers  all  key  aspects  of 
modernising EU law on this matter, including the specific implementation issues referred to in 
the second subparagraph of Article 60(2) (the European Professional Card, modernisation of 
the  knowledge,  skills  and  competences  for  ‘sectoral’  professions,  and  the  common  training 
principles). The report presents the results of the special upgrading programme for Romanian 
nurses,  which  will  be  a  basis  for  review  of  the  provisions  on  the  acquired  rights  regime 
applicable  to  Romanian  nurses  responsible  for  general  care.  In  the  final  section,  the  report 
puts forward several conclusions. 

The report draws on an overview of national implementing measures that Member States sent 
to the Commission under Article 3(5) of amending Directive 2013/55/EU5, bi-annual reports 
of  Member  States  on  application  of  the  revised  Directive6,  and  information  acquired  by  the 
Commission in its work to enforce and  monitor application of this Directive in the Member 
States. 

This report does not constitute a full evaluation within the meaning of the Better Regulation 
Guidelines7. It is accompanied by a staff working document, consisting of the following parts:  

  Part I (Implementation plan 2014);  
  Part II (Transposition of amending Directive 2013/55/EU in the Member States); 
  Part III (Key issues raised in infringement procedures concerning non-compliance of 

national provisions with the revised Directive);  

  Part IV (Statistics on the use of the Internal Market Information System), and 
  Part V (Results of the special upgrading programme for Romanian nurses). 

1 OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p. 22. 
2 Single Market Act, Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence, ‘Working together to create new 
growth’, COM(2011) 206 final. 
3 OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 132. 
4 Directive 2005/36/EC, as amended by Directive 2013/55/EU is referred to as ‘the revised Directive’. 
5 Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/NIM/?uri=celex:32013L0055. 
6 Under Article 60(1) of the revised Directive, as from 20 October 2007, Member States shall, every 2 years, 
send a report to the Commission on the application of the system. These reports contain a statistical summary of 
the decision taken and a description of the main problems arising from the application of the Directive. 
7 SWD(2017) 350 Commission Staff Working Document — Better Regulation Guidelines. 

2 

 
 
 
                                                 
2.  MODERNISING THE RULES TO FACILITATE SAFE MOBILITY IN THE 21ST 

CENTURY 

The  changes  brought  in  by  amending  Directive  2013/55/EU  focused  on  modernising  the 
framework of recognition of professional qualifications and adapting it to an evolving labour 
market.  It  placed  a  strong  emphasis  on  the  use  of  modern  technology  in  recognition 
procedures  to  cut  red  tape  and  to  speed  up  the  formalities  that  enable  professional  mobility 
across  Europe.  The  aim  was  to  make  it  easier  for  professionals  to  have  their  qualifications 
recognised, whilst guaranteeing a higher level of protection for consumers and citizens. 

This section outlines the main changes brought in by amending Directive 2013/55/EU. 

Updating harmonised training requirements for ‘sectoral’ professions 

The  harmonised  minimum  training  conditions  defined  in  the  revised  Directive  for 
‘sectoral’  professions  (doctors,  nurses,  dentists,  veterinary  surgeons,  midwives,  pharmacists 
and  architects)  were  updated  to  reflect  changes  in  the  professions  and  in  education  in  these 
fields. The changes cover the provisions on the entry requirements for training, the minimum 
duration of training, the lists of minimum knowledge, skills and competences, and the lists of 
minimum professional activities reserved to some professions.  

Although it made limited changes to the provisions on knowledge, skills and competences, no 
corresponding changes were made to the minimum study programmes set out in Annex V to 
the  revised  Directive.  The  revised  Directive  delegated  powers  to  the  Commission  to  make 
further updates to the knowledge and skills requirements and to the lists of training subjects in 
Annex V to the revised Directive. These updates could be made only, if necessary, at a later 
stage, and in light of generally acknowledged scientific and technical progress.  

Through these delegated powers, the Commission may  also  update the following aspects  of 
Annex V: the minimum training duration for medical and dental specialisations8, categories of 
medical  and  dental  specialities9,  and  the  lists  of  evidence  of  the  formal  qualifications  that 
meet the minimum training conditions10. 

On  7 May  2018,  the  Commission  published  its  first  report  on  its  use  of  the  delegated 
powers11. The power to adopt delegated acts conferred on the Commission was subsequently 
extended tacitly until January 2024. 

New venues for automatic recognition 

The  revised  Directive  brought  in  the  possibility  to  establish  common  training  principles 
(frameworks or tests) and to extend the system of automatic recognition to new professions. 
This new system allows professional organisations and Member State regulators to agree on a 
common  set  of  knowledge,  skills  and  competences  (or  an  aptitude  test)  needed  to  pursue  a 
profession. On this basis they can suggest to the Commission a common training framework 

8 Article  25(5) and 35(2) of the revised Directive. 
9 Article  26 and 35(5) of the revised Directive. 
10 Article 21a of the revised Directive. 
11 COM(2018) 263 final. 

3 

 
 
                                                 
or  test.  Qualifications  obtained  under  these  common  training  frameworks  (or  tests)  would 
automatically be recognised in other Member States. This possibility applies to cases where 
the profession (or the education and training for the profession) is already regulated in at least 
one third of Member States. 

Ease in establishing and providing services in another Member State 

The revised Directive also addressed specific problems in assessing requests for recognition 
under the general system of recognition, notably as regards modernising qualification levels, 
the mobility of professionals between non-regulating and regulating Member States, and the 
organisation  of  compensation  measures.  In  particular,  it  made  sure  that  qualification  levels 
can be used by the authorities only as an initial benchmarking tool and that mere differences 
in the levels cannot be used as grounds to reject applications for recognition12. Member States 
may no longer impose compensatory measures on the basis of shorter training duration (they 
must  demonstrate  substantial  differences  in  training).  National  authorities  must  duly  justify 
the use of compensatory measures and make sure that aptitude tests are organised regularly. 

Both  in  cases  of  establishment  under  the  general  system  of  recognition  and  in  cases  of 
temporary service provision, professionals coming from a country that does not regulate a 
profession no longer need to prove two years of professional experience over the previous 10 
years (one year of required professional experience is sufficient). 

The revised Directive also clarified that submission of a prior declaration for  temporary or 
occasional  service  provision  entitles  service  providers  to  have  access  to  and  exercise  their 
profession throughout the host Member State. It also revised the timeframe for carrying out a 
check  of  professional  qualifications  under  Article 7(4)  of  the  revised  Directive  prior  to  the 
first provision of services for professions who work in the field of public health and safety. 

New rules for partial access, traineeships and language checks 

Building  on  the  case  law  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union13,  the  revised 
Directive  introduced  the  principle  of  partial  access  to  a  profession  where  the  activities 
covered by a regulated profession differ from one country to another. This can be useful for 
professionals working in a genuine sector of the economy that does not exist as a profession 
in its own right in the Member State to which they wish to move. 

The  revised  Directive  now  obliges  Member  States  to  recognise  professional  traineeships 
carried out in other Member States, where this period of traineeship is compulsory to access a 
regulated profession.  

It  also  allows  host  Member  States  to  carry  out  systematic  language  checks  only  for 
professions that have implications on patient safety. Language checks should take place only 

12 There is only one exception to this rule, i.e., where a professional is qualified at the lowest level (a), but seeks 
access to a profession in the host country with a qualification requirements at the highest level (e), the authorities 
can reject his/her application for recognition. 
13 CJEU of 19.1.2006, Case C-330/03, Colegio de ingenieros de caminos, canales y puertos, 
ECLI:EU:C:2006:45. 

4 

 
 
                                                 
after  the  host  Member  State  has  recognised  the  qualification,  should  be  limited  to  the 
knowledge of one official or administrative language of the host Member State, and should be 
proportionate to the activity to be pursued. 

Mandatory use of the Internal Market Information System 

The directive makes use of the Internal Market Information (IMI) system mandatory, both for 
administrative  exchanges  and  for  the  purpose  of  notifying  the  qualifications  needed  to 
meet the harmonised minimum training requirements, i.e., qualifications listed in Annex V to 
the revised Directive. In addition, the IMI is the platform to operate the two new tools brought 
in  by  the  latest  revision  of  the  directive,  the  European  Professional  Card  and  the  alert 
mechanism. 

New tools to facilitate the safe mobility of professionals across the EU 

The  European  Professional  Card  (EPC)  is  an  innovative  tool  that  aims  to  simplify 
recognition procedures and takes the form of an electronic certificate. It is based on enhanced 
cooperation between the authorities of the home and host Member State and on the systematic 
use of the IMI, in line with the Commission’s policy to boost the Digital Single Market. The 
EPC can be made available to those professions that meet conditions as regards mobility (or 
potential  for  mobility),  the  number  of  regulating  Member  States,  and  the  interest  of 
stakeholders.14 

To ensure that increased professional mobility does not come at the expense of the consumer 
and patient safety, the revised Directive requires that pro-active alerts be sent to all Member 
States  on  professionals  who  have  restricted  access  to  their  health-  or  children-related 
profession  in  one  of  the  Member  States,  or  on  professionals  who  have  tried  to  use  falsified 
documents in their applications. 

Easier access to information and procedures and reducing red tape 

Member States have a clear obligation to make available all information about recognition of 
qualifications  for  all  regulated  professions  through  the  points  of  single  contact  (PSCs), 
which were created under Directive 2006/123/EC15 (the Services Directive) and were already 
applicable when Directive 2005/36/EC was revised. Professionals should be able to complete 
the procedures and formalities covered by the revised Directive online via the PSCs or the 
competent authorities in charge of the profession. Assistance centres in each Member State 
must provide advice and assistance to individual cases. 

Greater transparency about regulatory requirements 

Member  States  were  required  to  provide  information  on  their  existing  regulated  professions 
and professions that require a check of qualifications prior to the first provision of temporary 

14 Article 4a(7) of the revised Directive. 
15 Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the 
internal market, OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p.376. 

5 

 
 
                                                 
or  occasional  services,  and  to  keep  that  information  up  to  date.  In  addition,  Member  States 
carried out  a mutual  evaluation  of the barriers they have put  in  place limiting access  to  and 
exercise of regulated professions. The revised Directive also brought in ongoing obligations 
for  Member  States  to  report  on  any  requirements  removed  or  made  less  stringent,  and  any 
new or amended requirements, with explanations on their proportionality. 

6 

 
 
 
 
3.  IMPLEMENTATION IN THE MEMBER STATES 

3.1 

Support for transposition 

Acknowledging that a proper and timely implementation of the revised Directive was key to 
the success of modernisation and the new framework for the recognition of qualifications, the 
Commission  made  best  endeavours  to  support  the  work  of  the  Member  States.  Regular 
meetings took place in the expert groups established by the Directive16 and the Commission 
held  bilateral  meetings  with  Member States. To raise awareness  and exchange views on the 
key aspects of the modernisation work, the Commission organised a high-level conference17 
with the active participation of the European Parliament, the Council and several professional 
organisations  and  competent  authorities.  On  a  more  technical  level,  the  Commission 
organised several transposition workshops with experts from the Member States to discuss the 
main amendments, and participated in national implementation workshops. The Commission 
continued to provide assistance to the Member States at their request, in line with the actions 
outlined in the implementation plan (see Part I of the staff working document). 

In  parallel,  the  Commission  worked  closely  with  the  Member  States  to  ensure  a  proper 
implementation of the new obligations on transparency, mutual evaluation and proportionality 
assessments of their regulated professions under Article 59 of the revised Directive. 

The Commission  (with the assistance of  an external  contractor) also  carried out  an in-depth 
quality (conformity) check of the national legislation notified by the Member States. 

3.2 

Transposition delays and enforcement action 

The  transposition  deadline  for  the  amending  Directive  2013/55/EU  was  18 January  2016. 
Most  of  the  Member  States  did  not  complete  the  transposition  by  the  deadline.  Bi-annual 
reports of Member States for the period of 2016-2018 indicate that Member States with a non-
centralised approach to implementation (through federal, regional or provincial laws) faced a 
higher  administrative  burden  due  to  the  need  to  adapt  a  large  body  of  legislation  and  to 
cooperate  and  involve  a  greater  number  of  responsible  authorities.  Member  States  with 
comparatively  fewer  recognition  decisions  signalled  the  complexity  of  the  recognition 
processes and difficulties to find and maintain the required expertise. 

Part  II  of  the  staff  working  document  provides  a  more  detailed  overview  of  Member  State 
notifications of national implementing measures. 

Infringement  proceedings  followed  shortly  after  the  transposition  deadline  expired.  18  A 
significant number of Member States were late in completing transposition. The Commission 
closed  the  last  non-communication  infringement  cases  in  March  2018.  Subsequently,  the 
Commission  checked  the  compliance  of  notified  national  regulations  and  administrative 

16 Group of Coordinators for the Recognition of Professional Qualifications. 
17 Conference ‘Modernisation of the Professional Qualifications Directive: safe mobility’ (Brussels, 12.2.2014). 
18 The Commission launched 22 so-called non-communication cases in March 2016. See COM press releases 
MEMO/16/3125 and IP/17/4773. 

7 

 
 
                                                 
practices  with  the  requirements  of  the  revised  Directive  and  launched  infringement 
procedures, when needed. 

On 19 July 2018, the Commission started a first series of infringement procedures against 27 
Member States19 for non-compliance of their national legislation and practice with the revised 
Directive20. This set of infringement procedures (‘1st batch’) covered new issues crucial to the 
functioning  of  the  revised  Directive,  in  particular  the  new  EPC,  the  alert  mechanism,  the 
partial access to a professional activity, the proportionality of language requirements and the 
setting  up  of  assistance  centres.  In  addition,  the  Commission  raised  issues  relating  to  the 
transparency and proportionality of regulatory obstacles in professional services, following up 
on  its  Communication  from  January  2017  on  reform  recommendations  for  regulation  in 
professional services21. 

After having assessed Member State replies to the above-mentioned letters of formal notice, 
on 7 March 2019, the Commission took further steps in the infringement procedures against 
26 Member States. It sent reasoned opinions to 24 Member States22 and additional letters of 
formal  notice  to  two  Member  States23  for  non-compliance  of  their  national  legislation  and 
practices with the revised EU rules on the recognition of professional qualifications24. These 
procedures  are  still  ongoing  with  an  exception  of  one  case  that  was  closed  following 
compliance by the Member State concerned. 

On 24 January 2019, the Commission launched a second set of infringement procedures (‘2nd 
batch’) against 27 Member States25 regarding compliance of their national rules and practice 
with  other  key  provisions  of  the  directive.  This  included  compliance  with  the  rules  on 
freedom of establishment, freedom to provide services, professions benefiting from automatic 
recognition  based  on  harmonised  minimum  training  requirements,  documentation  and 
formalities,  recognition  of  professional  traineeships  and  administrative  cooperation26.  On 
27 November  2019,  the  Commission  sent  reasoned  opinions  to  22  Member  States27  and 
additional letters of formal notice to four Member States28. These procedures are still ongoing. 

Though  this  enforcement  work  focused  on  the  main  changes  brought  in  by  amending 
Directive 2013/55/EU, it also addressed overall implementation of the revised Directive in the 
national  legal  frameworks.  It  was  the  first  systematic  and  comprehensive  assessment  of  the 
national legal framework for recognition of qualifications under the directive. 

19 All EU Member States, except Lithuania. 
20 See COM press release MEMO/18/4486. 
21 COM/2016/0820 final. 
22 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, 
Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and 
the United Kingdom. 
23 Estonia and Latvia. 
24 See COM press release MEMO/19/1472. 
25 All Member States, except Denmark. 
26 See COM press release IP/19/467. 
27 All Member States, except Denmark, Belgium, Germany, Malta and Spain. 
28 Spain and Belgium (10 October 2019); Malta and Germany (27 November 2019). 

8 

 
 
                                                 
In addition,  on 6 June 2019, all 28 Member States received specific letters of  formal notice 
with  the  request  to  improve  the  functioning  of  their  PSCs  established  under  the  Services 
Directive.  This  also  covered  information  and  procedures  related  to  the  recognition  of 
qualifications  (Articles 57  and  57a  of  the  revised  Directive)  with  a  view  to  providing  user-
friendly,  one-stop  shops  for  service  providers  and  professionals29.  These  infringement 
procedures are still ongoing. 

3.3 

Implementation in the Member States: state of play 

In the Commission’s assessment of national transposition measures and the measures taken to 
enforce  the  rules,  the  Commission  found  that  the  Member  States  are  making  progress  in 
implementation  of  the  revised  Directive  to  different  degrees  of  success.  Member  States’ 
efforts  were  effectively  improved  by  the  Commission’s  enforcement  action,  as  shown  in 
graph 1 below. 

Graph 1. Number of cases where Member States are making progress v the number of cases 
where discussions with the Member States concerned are ongoing on one or more issues of 
non-compliance (March 2020) 

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

27 

9 

17 

27 

10 

17 

1 

1st batch

2nd batch

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Discussions with relevant
Member States ongoing

Cases where Member States are
making progress (adopted
amending measures or have
communicated the drafts and
timelines for adoption, provided
further explanations)

Cases closed

Total

The section below provides an overview of implementation in Member States of the revised 
Directive,  including  the  main  changes  brought  in  to  modernise  the  rules.  The  overview  is 
based  on  the  main  findings  from  the  work  described  above,  in  particular  the  conformity 
assessment  and  other  available  information.  Part  III  of  the  staff  working  document  gives  a 
more detailed overview of the key issues raised in the infringement procedures. 

Transposition of harmonised minimum training requirements for ‘sectoral’ professions 

The  harmonised  minimum  training  requirements  (entry  requirements,  the  minimum  training 
duration, the lists of minimum knowledge, skills and competences, and the lists of minimum 
reserved  professional  activities)  are  the  basis  for  automatic  recognition  of  qualifications 

29 See COM press release MEMO/19/2772. 

9 

 
 
 
                                                 
between  Member  States.  In  addition,  professionals  can  benefit  from  automatic  recognition 
through general or specific acquired rights. 

The Commission’s assessment of national transposition measures shows that implementation 
in  Member  States  of  updated  harmonised  minimum  training  conditions  for  ‘sectoral’ 
professions  was  generally  adequate.  However,  the  Commission  had  to  take  infringement 
measures to address a number of specific issues. In the majority of cases, in reply to the letters 
of  formal  notice  and  reasoned  opinions,  the  Member  States  communicated  the  necessary 
amendments  to  their  national  provisions,  or  indicated  a  specific  timeline  for  adopting  these 
amendments. Discussions are ongoing with the remaining Member States.  

In  particular,  non-compliance  issues  in  specific  Member  States  concerned  the  key  issues 
shown  in  Graph  2  below  (see  Part  III  of  the  staff  working  document,  table  ‘Sectoral 
professions’): 

Graph 2. Number of Member States concerned by the key issues of non-compliance regarding 
sectoral professions (March 2020) 

General acquired rights

Profession-specific acquired rights

Conditions for traineeships / practical / clinical training

Access to the minimum list of professional activities

Training duration in years & training hours (ECTS
optionally)

Updates of the knowledge and skills

Minimum training subjects and/or titles listed in Annex V

Ratio between theoretical and clinical training

Competences for general care nurse

0 

0 

0 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2

0

19 

14 

10 

10 

9 

7 

4 

5 

4 

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Cases where discussions with Member States are ongoing

Cases where Member States show progress

Possible future updates (by means of delegated acts) to the knowledge and skills requirements 
and to the lists of training subjects 

The  revised  Directive  delegated  powers  to  the  Commission  to  make  further  updates  to  the 
knowledge  and  skills  requirements  and  to  the  lists  of  training  subjects  in  Annex  V  to  the 
revised Directive, if necessary, and in light of generally acknowledged scientific and technical 
progress. 

In this context,  in  parallel  with  the review of national  transposition measures, in  2017-2018 
the Commission commissioned a study to collect background information and an independent 

10 

 
 
 
assessment  prior  to  taking  an  informed  decision  on  whether  further  changes  to  the  revised 
Directive are needed for nurses responsible for general care, and if so, to what extent30. 

The  study  will  map  the  current  national  requirements  in  all  EU,  EFTA  States  (Iceland, 
Liechtenstein,  Norway  and  Switzerland)  and  the  UK  with  regard  to  theoretical  and  clinical 
training for nurses responsible for general care and the knowledge and skills that they should 
acquire during such training. The mapping focuses on identifying any existing requirements in 
Member  States  that  go  beyond  the  minimum  training  requirements  set  under  the  revised 
Directive  and  assesses  whether  these  requirements  reflect  an  adaptation  to  generally 
acknowledged scientific and technical progress. The study will also contain an assessment of 
the  mapped  requirements  and  suggestions  on  whether  or  not  there  is  a  need  to  revise  the 
knowledge and skills requirements and the lists of training subjects for nurses responsible for 
general care. 

On  12 November  2019,  a  stakeholder  workshop  took  place  in  Brussels  where  preliminary 
results  of  the  study  were  presented  and  discussed  with  national  authorities,  training 
institutions  and  representatives  of  the  profession  on  national  and  EU/EFTA  level.  On  27 
November 2019, preliminary results were also consulted with Member States via the national 
coordinators  for  the  recognition  of  professional  qualifications.  On  21  January  2020,  the 
preliminary results were presented for discussion at the meeting of the group of coordinators 
for the recognition of professional qualifications. 

The  preliminary  results  of  the  research  corroborated  with  stakeholders  input  indicate  a 
number of suggestions for possible updates to the knowledge and skills requirements and the 
list of training subjects for nurses responsible for general care. The study will be finalised and 
published in the course of 2020. The Commission will subsequently discuss the final findings 
in  the  group  of  coordinators  for  the  recognition  of  professional  qualifications  to  assess  the 
next steps. 

In  parallel,  the  Commission  launched  another  call  for  tender  for  the  dentist  and  pharmacist 
professions31.  These  studies  will  focus  on  the  need  to  update  the  required  knowledge  and 
skills requirements and the lists of training subjects for these professions. 

Other delegated acts for ‘sectoral’ professions 

On the basis of Article 21a(4) of the revised Directive, the Commission is also empowered to 
adopt delegated acts amending the lists of evidence of formal qualifications in Annex V to 
the revised Directive, which serve as a basis for automatic recognition.  

Following  the  last  revision  of  the  directive,  the  use  of  IMI  by  Member  States  became 
mandatory  for  the  purpose  of  notifying  new  titles  of  qualifications  for  sectoral  professions 
benefitting  from  automatic  recognition  (and  for  notifying  changes  to  old  titles  and  training 

30 Call for tenders No 628/PP/GRO/IM A/17/1131/9580 (closed with a non-award notice) and No 
711/PP/GRO/IMA/18/1131/11026 (study ongoing). 
31  Call  for  tender  No  2019/S  144-353631  (closed  with  non-award  decision),  call  for  tender  available  at 
https://etendering.ted.europa.eu/cft/cft-display.html?cftId=5139 

11 

 
 
                                                 
programmes)32. Therefore, prompt notification of any changes to  qualification titles via IMI 
by  Member  States  is  a  necessary  precondition  for  the  Commission  to  be  able  to  update 
Annex V.  Following  feedback  from  the  Member  States  in  their  bi-annual  reports,  it  is 
essential to have up-to-date lists of Annex V diplomas for the automatic recognition system to 
function. 

Since  2014,  the  Commission  has  regularly  updated  these  lists  in  Annex  V  on  the  basis  of 
Member  State  notifications  via  IMI.  So  far,  the  Commission  has  adopted  four  delegated 
decisions amending Annex V to the revised Directive33. 

More  details  on  the  use  of  IMI  by  individual  Member  States  for  notifications  of  Annex  V 
diplomas is set out in Part IV (section 2) of the accompanying staff working document. 

Common training principles (frameworks or tests) 

On  24 June  2019,  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2019/907  of  14 March  2019 
establishing  a  common  training  test  for  ski  instructors  under  Article 49b  of  the  revised 
Directive  entered  into  force34.  This  is  the  first  use  case  of  the  new  tool  to  issue  delegated 
regulations.  

The  common  training  test  for  ski  instructors  was  developed  in  close  consultation  with 
organisations  representing  ski  instructors  from  all  interested  EU  countries.  It  is  a  voluntary 
framework  for  the  automatic  recognition  of  qualifications  held  by  ski  instructors  under  a 
formal EU legal instrument. Ski instructors holding a relevant qualification can take a test to 
assess their technical abilities and a test to assess their safety-related competences. Successful 
completion  of  these  standardised  tests  allows  ski  instructors  to  benefit  from  automatic 
recognition while guaranteeing a high level of training and skills. However, the Commission 
Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2019/907  neither  harmonises  national  training  nor  imposes 
additional regulation on Member States. For ski instructors not qualified under the common 
training test, the general regime for recognition of qualifications under the revised Directive 
remains applicable. 

In addition to this first use case, the Commission has been in contact with representatives of 
several professions to explore the scope to introduce common training principles.  

Around  30  professional  organisations  have  expressed  an  interest  in  common  training 
principles and no formal suggestions came from the Member States.  Further analysis of the 
expressions of interest revealed that a number of these professions did not reach the required 
threshold of Member States where the profession or education and training is regulated, e.g. 
osteopaths,  chiropractors  and  fitness  instructors.  Other  suggestions  could  lead  to  extending 
regulation at national level, which could have a negative impact on access to the profession 

32 Article 21a(1) of the revised Directive. 
33 Commission delegated decisions (EU) 2016/790, 2017/2113, 2019/608, and 2020/548. 
34 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/907 of 14 March 2019 establishing a Common Training Test 
for ski instructors under Article 49b of the revised Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council on the recognition of the professional qualifications (OJ L 145, 4.6.2019, p. 7-18). 

12 

 
 
                                                 
and  mobility.  Such  measures  would  ultimately  not  fulfil  the  main  objective  of  the  common 
training principles to enable professionals to move across Member States more easily.  

The Member States consulted via the Group of Coordinators expressed mainly positive views 
on  bringing  in  common  training  principles  for  engineers  and  ski  instructors,  but  rather 
cautious to do so for other professions. 

The  Commission  contracted  two  studies  to  look  into  the  possibility  of  developing  common 
training  frameworks.  One  concerned  healthcare  assistants35  (2015-2016)  and  another 
concerned engineers36 (2016-2017). 

As regards healthcare assistants, although the study identified a degree of convergence among 
Member States on a core set of knowledge, skills and competences and interest to define the 
role  of  healthcare  assistants  across  Europe,  there  were  diverging  views  on  the  levels  of 
education  required,  the  qualification  levels  to  be  achieved,  the  final  level  of  autonomy  of 
professionals  and  potential  unintended  consequences  of  developing  such  a  framework  on 
national health work forces and education systems. 

As  regards  engineers,  the  mapping  of  the  profession  identified  a  wide  range  of  regulatory 
regimes for the profession and a high number of engineering specialities. The project finally 
focused on civil engineers. Although there was consensus to develop the idea of a framework 
for  engineers,  several  stakeholders  (in  particular  non-regulating  Member  States)  and 
education  providers  were  hesitant  regarding  process  and  potential  consequences  on  the 
regulation of the profession in non-regulating countries and on the education system. 

General system of recognition and temporary service provision 

The revision of the general system of recognition has been satisfactorily transposed in nearly 
all  Member  States,  with  the  exception  of  several  cases  of  non-compliance,  for  example, 
regarding  changes  to  qualification  levels,  the  new  rules  on  mobility  from  non-regulated 
countries and the setting of compensation measures. In the vast majority of cases, the Member 
States  showed  progress  by  responding  to  the  infringement  measures  and  communicating 
specific solutions to the issues raised. For very few cases, discussions are still ongoing with 
the Member States concerned (see Part III of the staff working document, table on ‘General 
system of recognition’). 

35 Core Competences of Healthcare Assistants in Europe (CC4HCA), available at 
https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/workforce/docs/2018_corecompetences_healthcareassistants_en.pdf. 
36 Not published. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Graph 3. Number of Member States concerned by the key issues of non-compliance regarding 
the general system of recognition (March 2020) 

Revised provisions on imposition of compensation
measures

Mobility from non-regulating MSs (1 year professional
experience)

Changes to qualification levels

Other issues

2 

2 

1 

1 

3 

3 

4 

8 

Cases where discussions with Member States are ongoing

Cases where Member States show progress

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Ensuring  consistent  and  efficient  implementation  of  the  provisions  governing  temporary 
and  occasional  service  provision  across  the  Member  States  to  the  benefits  of  citizens  and 
businesses  is  a  key  component  of  an  efficient  single  market  of  services  for  regulated 
professions.  This  is  crucial  to  ensure  Article 56  TFEU  is  applied  and  to  protect  the 
fundamental freedom to provide services.  

Implementing  the  revised  provisions  of  Title  II  of  the  revised  Directive  on  temporary  and 
occasional  service  provision  raised  concerns  for  21  Member  States  and  with  eight  Member 
States  discussions  are  still  ongoing.  In  particular,  the  instances  of  non-compliance  in  those 
Member States concerned the main issues outlined in Graph 4 below (see Part III of the staff 
working document, table on ‘Temporary service provision’): 

Graph 4. Number of  Member States concerned by key issues of  non-compliance (temporary 
service provision) (March 2020) 

Unjustified imposition of prior checks

3 

Professional rules not linked to qualifications

Mobility from non-regulating MSs (1 year professional
experience)
Posility to take a test and provide services within one
month

1 

1 

Registration requirements

Territorial validity of prior declarations

0 

Unjustified document/information requests

4 
4 

4 

5 

5 

5 

6 

6 

6 

6 

Cases where discussions with Member States are ongoing

Cases where Member States show progress

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

14 

 
 
 
 
Following  the  Commission’s  infringement  action,  discussions  are  still  ongoing  with  several 
Member States on issues such as:  

- 

- 

- 

- 

unjustified enquiries  about  the services to  be provided, or  requests of documents 
going beyond what is permitted under the revised Directive;  

validity of prior declarations in the whole territory of the host Member State;  

registration  requirements  exceeding  what  is  permitted  under  Article 6  of  the 
revised Directive;  

or possibilities for service providers to  take an  aptitude test and provide  services 
within one month of the decision taken. 

Partial access 

Implementation of the new rules on partial access raised concerns for 12 Member States. In 
particular, the Commission’s enforcement action tackled the two main issues discussed below 
(for more details, see Part III of the staff working document, table on ‘Partial access’). 

Graph  5.  Number  of  Member  States  concerned  by  key  issues  of  non-compliance  (partial 
access) (March 2020) 

Unjustified exclusion of professions from partial access

Partial access not available ex-officio (only if specifically
requested)

Other

0 

0 

2 

1 

3 

7 

Cases where discussions with Member States are ongoing

Cases where Member States show progress

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

A  first  issue  concerned  excluding  certain  professions  from  the  principle  of  partial  access. 
While  partial  access  provisions  do  not  apply  to  professionals  benefiting  from  automatic 
recognition  of  their  professional  qualifications  (such  as  doctors,  nurses,  craft/trade 
professionals, or professionals benefitting from common training principles), the provisions of 
the revised Directive do not aim to exclude partial access to separable parts of the activities of 
‘sectoral’ professions. Such categorical  exclusion from  the principle of  partial access  would 
not be in line with European Court case law or with the principle of proportionality under the 
fundamental freedoms37. This issue was taken up with ten Member States. While progress was 
made in many Member States, discussions are still ongoing with others. 

Second, the Commission insisted that partial access  should be applied as  ex officio decision 
and not only at the specific and explicit request of the applicant. Most individuals are unlikely 
to be fully aware of the possibility to obtain partial access to a profession and will therefore 

37 CJEU of 27.6.2013, Case C-575/11, Nasiopoulos, ECLI:EU:C:2013:430. 

15 

 
 
 
                                                 
often  not  be  in  a  position  to  apply  for  it  after  having  their  request  for  recognition  rejected 
concerning  access  to  the  full  profession.  Thus,  in  cases  where  partial  access  could  be 
applicable, the competent authorities should either assess the possibility for partial access in 
that recognition procedure or at least clearly inform the applicant about this possibility. This 
was taken up with two Member States, which made progress in proposing practical solutions. 

It  is  also  interesting  to  observe  that  in  bi-annual  reports,  some  Member  States  raised  the 
problem  of  application  of  partial  access  where  the  regulation  establishes  protected 
professional  titles  only  (considering  that  partial  access  essentially  concerns  access  to 
professional activities, but not the titles to exercise those professions). 

Language controls 

Implementation of the new rules on  language checks was addressed in  the enforcement for 
approximately  one  third  of  Member  States,  and  concerned  specific  key  issues  of  non-
compliance  shown  in  graph  6  below  (see  Part  III  of  the  staff  working  document,  table 
‘Language controls’).  

Graph  6.  Number  of  Member  States  concerned  by  key  issues  of  non-compliance  (language 
checks) (March 2020) 

Only the knowledge of one official language of the host
Member State may be required

Language controls should not be limited to mandatory
language tests

Systematic language checks may only be applied for
professionals with patient safety implications

Other issues

0 

1 
1 

1 

1 

1 

5 

4 

Cases where discussions with Member States are ongoing

Cases where Member States show progress

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

The Commission’s enforcement  action aimed to  ensure  for instance that  only knowledge of 
one official language of the host Member State may be required and that systematic language 
checks may only be applied for professionals with patient safety implications. Several cases 
of  Member  States  imposing  mandatory  language  tests  proved  most  problematic  to  resolve, 
and  discussions  with  most  of  the  Member  States  concerned  are  ongoing.  On  the  basis  of 
established  Court  of  Justice  case  law38,  the  Commission  insisted  that  only  where  the  proof 

38 CJEU of 6.6.2000, C-281/98, Angonese, ECLI:EU:C:2000:296, paragraphs 38-44 and 5.2.2015, C-317/14 
Kommission/Belgium, ECLI:EU:C:2015:63, paragraphs 27-31. The Court of Justice was very clear that it is an 
unjustified discrimination when linguistic knowledge can only be proven by means of one particular diploma, 
such as a certificate issued only in one particular (province of a) Member State. 

16 

 
 
 
                                                 
provided by the applicant (e.g. language certificates from a foreign language school) was not 
conclusive, language knowledge could be tested. 

Traineeships 

The  Commission  raised  issues  regarding  the  new  rules  on  the  recognition  of  professional 
traineeships  carried  out  in  other  Member  States.  There  were  seven  cases  of  the  notified 
national  legislation  not  complying  with  the  rules,  due  to  either  a  complete  lack  of 
transposition,  incorrect  implementation  of  the  provisions  on  traineeships  or  a  failure  to 
publish guidelines on the organisation and recognition of professional traineeships undertaken 
abroad.  Although  most  Member  States  made  progress  to  address  the  issues  raised,  a  few 
require further follow-up with the Member States concerned (see Part III of the staff working 
document, table on ‘Traineeships’). 

Internal Market Information System 

The  IMI  has  contributed  to  the  smooth  operation  of  Directive  2005/36/EC  since  2008  by 
allowing  national  competent  authorities  to  communicate  directly,  quickly  and  easily  via  a 
secure online platform, and to overcome language barriers as it includes pre-translated sets of 
standard questions and answers. 

Entry into force of amending Directive 2013/55/EU made the use of IMI mandatory both for 
the  administrative  exchanges  and  for  notification  of  qualification  titles  that  meet  the 
harmonised minimum training requirements, as listed in Annex V to the revised Directive. 

Section 1 of Part IV of the staff working document provides statistical data on the use of the 
IMI  platform  under  the  Directive.  It  clearly  shows  that  the  use  of  the  IMI  for  the  general 
administrative  cooperation  is  increasing  steadily  over  time  (Chart  1  of  Part  IV  of  the  staff 
working document), and has nearly doubled since its use became mandatory in 2016 (Chart 2 
of Part IV of the staff working document). However, there are differences in the activities of 
individual  Member  States  with  some  being  pro-active  senders  of  requests  and  others  being 
mostly  receivers  (Chart  3  of  Part  IV  of  the  staff  working  document).  Although  the  average 
response  rates  remains  rather  high  (over  96%),  for  a  few  Member  States  response  rates  are 
visibly lower. The greatest variation among Member States is in their average response times 
(Chart 4 of Part IV of the staff working document). 

Ineffective use of IMI requests for information by several Member States is one of the most 
reported  challenges  in  Member  States’  bi-annual  reports.  According  to  national  authorities, 
information  exchanges  could  be  more  effective,  response  times  by  some  countries  are  too 
long,  or  in  some  cases  no  satisfactory  answers  are  received,  in  particular  as  regards  cases 
concerning  professions  that  are  not  regulated  in  the  home  Member  State,  cases  concerning 
regulated  education  and  training,  or  verification  of  the  professional  experience.  It  was  also 
reported that a few Member States were not consistently using IMI to seek clarification and so 
create more burden for professionals. 

The IMI modules for notifying qualifications listed in Annex V to the revised Directive were 
introduced in 2014, replacing the previous system of notification via formal correspondence 

17 

 
 
via Member State permanent representations. The Commission developed profession-specific 
IMI  modules  for  this  purpose,  which  are  available  since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  revised 
Directive. Over 70% of changes to qualification titles notified via IMI are already reflected in 
Annex V to the revised Directive, as updated by recurrent Commission delegated decisions39. 
In this context, timely notification of changes to qualification titles by Member States via IMI 
is an essential precondition for the Commission to regularly update Annex V. 

European Professional Card and the alert mechanism 

The  IMI  has  become  a  successful  platform  for  the  functioning  of  the  two  new  instruments 
brought  in  by  the  last  revision  of  the  Directive,  a  European  Professional  Card  (EPC)  and 
the alert mechanism. 

The revised Directive laid down the legal basis for the alert mechanism and for the EPC for 
certain  professions.  Subsequently  in  2015,  the  Commission  adopted  an  implementing 
regulation40  introducing  the  EPC  for  five  professions  (nurses  responsible  for  general  care, 
pharmacists, physiotherapists, real estate agents and mountain guides) as of 18 January 2016. 

The Commission closely monitored the functioning of these two new instruments. Two years 
after their launch, the Commission evaluated stakeholder experience in using the EPC and the 
alert mechanism. It published its findings, along with the supporting statistical data, in a staff 
working  document41  on  9 April  2018  (‘the  2018  staff  working  document’).  The  2018  staff 
working document shows that the Member States and the stakeholders perceived the EPC and 
the alert mechanism positively, though it underlined the importance of continuous legal  and 
technical guidance and fine-tuning the platform’s functionalities. 

This report will not reiterate the findings of the 2018 staff working document, which can be 
consulted  in  detail.  However,  since  the  supporting  statistical  data  have  evolved  since  its 
publication, Part IV, section 3, of the staff working document accompanying this report gives 
an updated overview of the data, including the most recent period 2018-2019. 

The Commission’s ongoing enforcement work tackles problems in two thirds of the Member 
States (18) concerning compliance with EPC provisions and in more than half of the Member 
States (15) concerning implementation of the alert mechanism. Graph 7 shows the main key 
issues of non-compliance. 

39 See footnote 33 above. 
40 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/983 of 24 June 2015 on the procedure for issuance of the 
European Professional Card and the application of the alert mechanism pursuant to Directive 2005/36/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 159, 25.6.2015, p. 27–42. 
41 European Commission, SWD (2018) 90 final, Assessment of stakeholders’ experience with the European 
Professional Card and the Alert Mechanism procedures. 

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Graph  7.  Number  of  Member  States  concerned  by  key  issues  of  non-compliance  (EPC) 
(March 2020) 

EPC not fully transposed for some professions or in parts
of the MS territory

EPC deadlines, including extension of deadlines

Tacit recognition of  EPC

0 

0 

0 

3 

4 

Various (document requirements, role of home MS,
revocation of EPC, right to appeal, etc.)

1 

6 

10 

Cases where discussions with Member States are ongoing

Cases where Member States show progress

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

The EPC-related issues identified in the Commission’s assessment of transposition measures 
notified  by  Member  States  were  mostly  technical  and  related  to  procedural  rules.  This 
included missing or wrong specification of deadlines in legislation, and tacit recognition not 
provided for in all cases required by the revised Directive. In a few instances, the EPC rules 
were not transposed for certain professions or in parts of a Member State territory. Following 
the Commission’s infringement letters, Member States have shown progress in resolving all 
cases of non-compliance (see Part III of the staff working document, table on ‘EPC’). 

According to Member States’ bi-annual reports, the EPC document repository in IMI is vital 
for a good functioning of the EPC procedure. The EPC document repository is a database in 
IMI  where  each  Member  State  notifies  its  document  requirements  and  application  fees  for 
EPC  procedures.  However,  according  to  the  feedback  from  the  Member  States  in  the  bi-
annual reports, some Member States do not report all their document requirements in the EPC 
repository.  Others  do  not  take  into  account  the  rules  established  in  the  implementing 
regulation about the document requests which are not permitted. According to the bi-annual 
reports, in a few instances, there is still a lack of mutual trust between competent authorities 
(e.g.  authorities  requesting  additional  documents  even  without  doubts  or  without  first 
contacting the other Member State authority).  

Regarding  the  EPC,  several  Member  States  also  called  for  a  clearer  definition  of  what 
constitutes  temporary  and  occasional  provision  of  services.  It  should  be  noted  that,  for 
temporary service provision, the EPC merely replaces the prior declaration under Article 7 of 
the revised Directive (i.e. a declaration on intended future activities) and therefore should not 
be treated differently. Accordingly, an EPC for temporary service provision cannot be refused 
on grounds other than missing accompanying documents, failure to prove legal establishment 
or  other  substantive  reasons  pursuant  to  Article 7  of  the  revised  Directive.  In  particular,  the 
duration and nature of the past professional activities in the territory of the host Member State 
should not be used as the sole reason to justify refusing to issue an EPC. The Member States 
are free to take other supervisory action to detect and penalise professionals who breach any 
applicable national rules. 

19 

 
 
 
Graph  8.  Number  of  Member  States  concerned  by  key  issues  of  non-compliance  (alert 
mechanism) (March 2020) 

Alert not implemented at all

1 
1 

Alert not implemented for some professions / in parts of
MS territory

Deadlines to send alerts

No or few alerts were sent

Various (data protection, deletion of data, obligation to 
inform the professional, access to remedies…) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

8 

12 

11 

Cases where discussions with Member States are ongoing

Cases where Member States show progress

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Concerning  implementation  of  the  alert  mechanism,  the  infringement  procedures  aimed  to 
ensure, for instance, that Member States meet the three-day deadline to send alerts and meet 
their  obligations  on  data  protection,  data  deletion,  and  information  for  professionals.  The 
enforcement action taken against a significant number of Member States concerned the alert 
mechanism.  The  Member  States  were  requested  to  provide  justification  as  to  why  they  had 
sent no or only very few alerts since the alert mechanism was brought in. In a few instances, 
the  Commission  found  that  the  alert  mechanism  was  not  implemented  at  all  for  specific 
professions  (e.g.  education  of  minors,  health  professions),  for  specific  cases  (e.g.  falsified 
diplomas),  or  only  in  parts  of  a  Member  State’s  territory  (see  Part  III  of  the  staff  working 
document, table on ‘Alert mechanism’). 

Member States have shown progress in complying with all the alert-related issues (except for 
one Member State). The Commission is in discussions with the one Member State concerned. 
It  is  also  worth  noting  that  the  number  of  competent  authorities  registered  in  IMI  for  the 
different alert modules increased significantly in 2018 and 2019 (see Chart 7 in Part IV of the 
staff working document). This  increase can be explained by the Commission’s enforcement 
work, which started in July 2018. 

In  their  bi-annual  reports,  Member  States  reported  certain  challenges  related  to  the 
functioning  of  the  alert  mechanism.  These  included  difficulties  in  meeting  the  deadline  to 
send alerts, technical feasibilities in managing the high volume of alert notifications (to filter 
substantive/relevant alerts), and differences between Member States as to when alerts need to 
be sent (due to different penalty mechanisms). One Member State called on the Commission 
to tackle the legal effects of alerts on the practice of professional activities at EU level. 

Access to online information, procedures and reducing red tape 

The  legislative  frameworks  at  national  and  European  level  have  changed  significantly  to 
facilitate, streamline and simplify the submission, storing and processing of documents. Both 

20 

 
 
 
the Services  Directive and the revised Directive include articles requiring Member States to 
submit  information  online  via  the  points  of  single  contact  and  requiring  Member  States  to 
offer  electronic  procedures  for  service  providers  and  professionals.  The  EPC  also  promotes 
the use of electronic procedures for recognition applications.  

Despite  the  evident  benefits  of  electronic  processing  of  applications,  Member  States  still 
maintain  several  requirements  that  not  only  undermine  the  current  developments  towards  a 
digital framework, but also breach EU law. During the transposition checks, the Commission 
identified  a  number  of  illegal  practices  or  requirements  concerning  document  requests  in  a 
number of Member States, such as document requests going beyond the requirements of the 
directive  (e.g.  for  CVs  or  photographs  that  meet  a  specific  standard;  requests  for  original 
documents; certified translations for proof of Annex V qualifications; certified copies and/or 
translations  of  identification  cards  or  passports;  information  on  training  in  a  specific  form; 
documents to be authenticated by one specific body or type of body in the home or the host 
Member State).  

The  Commission  raised  these  clearly  illegal  practises  or  requirements  with  the  15  Member 
States  concerned.  Following  the  Commission’s  infringement  action,  Member  States  have 
demonstrated progress in finding practical solutions in most of the identified cases (11 out of 
15).  However,  discussions  are  still  ongoing  with  the  remaining  four  Member  States  on 
document requirements (see Part III of the staff working document, table on ‘Access to online 
information, procedures and reduction of red tape’). 

The  obligations  for  Member  States  concerning  online  information  and  e-government 
requirements  for  citizens  are  not  new,  since  the  amendments  introduced  by  Directive 
2013/55/EU merely complemented the Services Directive42. Member States are obliged to set 
up  PSCs  and  ensure  that  the  PSCs  give  access  to  information  and  e-procedures  to  service 
providers.  In  practice  this  means  that  any  service  provider  (whether  or  not  they  are  already 
established  in  a  Member  State,  wish  to  set  up  their  services  or  simply  provide  cross-border 
services temporarily and occasionally), should be able, online and through the PSC, to: 

-  obtain  all  relevant  information  on  the  applicable  rules  governing  access  to  and  the 

provision of services; 

- 

- 

complete all procedures and formalities needed to access and provide services; 

receive  assistance  from  the  competent  authorities,  consisting  of  information  on  how 
the specific requirements are generally interpreted and applied. 

42  Article 57(1)  of  the  revised  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  provide  a  number  of  specific  pieces  of 
information  (like  a  list  of  regulated  professions  or  a  list  of  professions  for  which  the  Member  State  applies  a 
prior check of professional qualifications in case of temporary cross border provision of services as provided for 
in  Article 7(4)  of  Directive  2005/36/EC).  The  revised  Directive  also  extended  the  obligations  of  the  Services 
Directive  to  professions  not  covered  by  the  Services  Directive,  like  health  professions,  and  to  recognition 
procedures for employees. 

21 

 
 
                                                 
To  check  whether  citizens  and  business  can  actually  find  the  relevant  information  and 
complete  administrative  procedures  online,  in  2018/2019  the  Commission  ran  a  cross-EU 
assessment of national PSC services, focusing on a sample of services and professions. The 
assessment checked the online availability of information and online procedures via the PSCs 
on  registering  an  architectural  firm,  an  engineering  firm  and  a  tax  consultancy  firm  and 
applications for specific permits for construction. As regards the recognition of qualifications, 
the assessment focused on doctors (medical practitioners), architects, civil/building engineers, 
tourist guides, mountain guides and secondary school teachers. 

The assessment found that there was room for improvement in all Member States to a varying 
degree. Therefore, the Commission decided on 6 June 2019 to send letters of formal notice to 
all Member States regarding the availability of online information and procedures43. The main 
gaps identified were related to a lack of the required information via the PSCs, problems with 
the  quality  of  information,  lack  of  online  procedures,  and  more  generally  problems 
encountered  by  users  who  want  to  access  or  complete  a  procedure  across  borders.  This 
includes  lack  of  posibility  for  cross-border  users  to  access  an  online  procedure  or  lack  of 
online payments. The Commission is currently assessing the replies from the Member States 
to the letters of formal notice and the necessary follow-up with the Member States.  

In  view  of  the  above,  despite  the  benefits  of  electronic  procedures  and  well-developed 
administrative  cooperation,  some  Member  States  still  maintain  procedural  requirements  that 
create difficulties for e-government services or that even go beyond the practices allowed by 
the  revised  Directive.  The  functioning  of  national  PSCs,  in  terms  of  making  available 
information and online procedures, needs to be improved in most Member States, to a varying 
degree. 

Transparency obligations 

Article 59  of  the  revised  Directive  focused  on  transparency  measures,  obliging  all  Member 
States to report information on the professions they regulate, including regulation at regional 
level.  

In  particular,  by  18 January  2016,  Member  States  were  required  to  provide  the  following 
information via the database of regulated professions44 (and to keep this information updated):  

- 

- 

a  list  of  existing  regulated  professions,  specifying  the  activities  covered  by  each 
profession,  a  list  of  regulated  education  and  training,  and  training  with  a  special 
structure45;  

a list of professions for which a check of qualifications is deemed necessary prior to 
the first provision of services under Article 7(4) of the revised Directive, together with 
justification for the inclusion of professions on that list;  

43COM press release MEMO/19/2772. 
44 https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regprof/. 
45 Training with a special structure referred to in Article 11(c)(ii) of the revised Directive. 

22 

 
 
                                                 
- 

information  on  the  requirements  restricting  access  to  or  the  pursuit  of  regulated 
professions, and the reasons for considering that those requirements comply with the 
principles of non-discrimination and proportionality. 

Article 59(3)  &  (5)  of  the  revised  Directive  formed  the  legal  basis  for  a  mutual  evaluation 
exercise  that  took  place  over  2014-2016.  It  allowed  Member  States  to  compare  their 
regulatory approaches and committed them to simplify, where necessary, their national legal 
frameworks  governing  regulated  professions.  On  the  basis  of  this  process,  by  18 January 
2016, Member States were required to submit national action plans (‘NAPs’) presenting the 
outcomes  of  proportionality  assessments  and  identifying  the  need  for  reforms.  The  plans 
demonstrated  very  different  levels  of  ambition  across  the  Member  States  and  the 
proportionality assessments conducted during the mutual evaluation exercise were often very 
poor. 

Lastly, under Article 59(5) of the revised Directive, within six months of adoption, Member 
States were required provide to the Commission information on any requirements introduced 
after 18 January 2016 and the reasons for considering that those requirements comply with the 
principles of non-discrimination and proportionality. 

By 18 January 2016, and every two years thereafter, Member States must also report on any 
requirements which have been removed or made less stringent. 

To this end, the Commission has continuously updated the database on regulated professions 
to hold all the information communicated to it under Article 59 of the Directive. For instance, 
it  developed  a  new  screening  form  with  specific  questions  in  2018  to  help  Member  States 
assess the proportionality of regulation. Alongside the new screening form, the Commission 
issued informal guidance, which was discussed at the expert group meetings. The aim of these 
measures  was  to  increase  the  quality  and  depth  of  the  analyses  provided  by  the  Member 
States. Furthermore, proportionality assessments are now publicly available on the website of 
the database, which is  currently in  the process  of migration to  the  IMI to further streamline 
reporting obligations. However, despite continuous efforts, in many instances proportionality 
assessments by Member States remain of inadequate quality. 

The  Commission  assessed  Member  States’  compliance  with  the  transparency  and  reporting 
obligations  under  the  revised  Directive.  It  tackled  cases  of  non-compliance  in  27  Member 
States  who  failed  to  comply  with  the  transparency  obligations  with  a  reasonable  degree  of 
diligence  (for  more  details,  see  Part  III  of  the  staff  working  document,  table  ‘Transparency 
obligations’). 

23 

 
 
 
 
Graph  9.  Number  of  Member  States  concerned  by  key  issues  of  non-compliance 
(transparency) (March 2020) 

Proportionality assessments of requirements (existing
prior to Jan 2016)

List of professions for which a prior check of
qualifications is deemed necessary including justifications

List of existing regulated professions, list of regulated
education and training

Proportionality assessments of requirements (introduced
after Jan 2016)

Bi-annual reports about requirements removed or made
less stringent

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

Bi-annual statistical reports, including problem of
application

0 

National Action Plans

3 

1 

24 

23 

20 

20 

18 

16 

Cases where discussions with Member States are ongoing

Cases where Member States show progress

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Many  Member  States  failed  to  list  all  their  regulated  professions,  regulated  education  and 
training,  and/or  all  professions  subject  to  prior  check  of  qualifications  under  Article 7(4)  of 
the revised Directive with  adequate justifications.  In addition,  some countries  did  not  report 
professions  regulated  on  the  basis  of  specific  EU  laws  that  leave  discretion  to  the  Member 
States  on  how  to  implement  them.  As  regards  professions  subject  to  a  prior  check  of 
qualifications,  it  should  be  underlined  that  the  Commission’s  assessment  was  limited  to  the 
transparency obligations and is without prejudice to any assessment of the appropriateness of 
justifications for reasons of public health and safety. A few Member States had still failed to 
provide national action plans. 

The  Commission  also  found  that  for  some  existing  professions,  proportionality  assessments 
were completely lacking in the database of regulated professions. This was the case for over 
20  Member  States.  In  some  Member  States,  proportionality  assessments  were  missing  for 
over  80%  of  the  professions  they  had  notified.  Moreover,  for  some  professions,  many 
Member States did not provide information on existing or newly introduced entry or conduct 
requirements.  A  high  number  of  Member  States  also  failed  to  provide  reports  on  the 
requirements they had removed or made less stringent within a required deadline.  

The  Commission  reviewed  the  follow-up  on  Member  States’  obligation  to  provide  biennial 
reports  under  Article 60(1)  of  the  revised  Directive,  including  statistical  summaries  and  a 
description of the main problems arising from application of the revised Directive. Nearly one 
third  of  Member  States  were  subject  to  enforcement  action  and  had  since  provided  the 
missing reports. 

24 

 
 
 
Following the Commission’s infringement action, most Member States considerably stepped 
up their efforts to complete the database, as illustrated in graph 8 above. This is an important 
achievement,  given  the  importance  of  the  database  of  regulated  professions  as  a  source  of 
information for EU citizens seeking to exercise a profession abroad. However, a continuous 
effort by Member States is needed to ensure compliance with the transparency and reporting 
obligations.  It  remains  the  Member  States’  responsibility  to  ensure  the  accuracy  of  that 
information.  The  Commission  will  continue  to  closely  monitor  compliance  with  these 
obligations. 

25 

 
 
 
 
4.  RESULTS OF THE SPECIAL UPGRADING PROGRAMME FOR ROMANIAN 

NURSES 

Romania has set up an upgrading programme for general care nurses whose qualifications did 
not  meet  the  minimum  training  requirements  under  Directive  2005/36/EC,  following  the 
recommendation  introduced  via  recital  36  of  the  amending  Directive  2013/55/EU.  The  goal 
was to enable professionals who acquired their qualifications prior to Romanian’s accession 
to the EU to upgrade their qualifications to meet these EU-level minimum requirements. 

The content of the programme was discussed over 2012-2014 with the European Commission 
and  with  experts  from  Member  States  (BE,  DE,  ES,  FR,  IE,  MT,  PL,  IT,  and  UK).  The 
experts analysed in detail the training courses that Romania had delivered in the past at post-
secondary  and  at  higher  education  level  to  establish  the  extent  to  which  they  met  the 
minimum  requirements  under  Directive  2005/36/EC  (number  of  hours,  years  of  study, 
training subjects, skills, knowledge and competences to be acquired). Upgrading courses were 
designed to bridge the gaps identified. Following an assessment by Member State experts and 
further exchanges, the draft programme was adapted to take into account the feedback, e.g. on 
admission requirements, number of training hours and supervision during clinical training.  

Romania rolled out the final programme for nurses via Joint Order of the Minister of National 
Education and of the Minister of Health No 4317/943/2014, endorsed by the Romanian Order 
of  Nurses,  Midwives  and  Medical  Assistants  and  by  Order  of  the  Ministry  of  National 
Education No 5114/2014. 

To  implement  the  upgrading  programme  at  post-secondary  level,  eight  ‘train  the  trainers’ 
sessions  with  experts  from  five  Member  States  (BE,  DK,  IE,  PL  and  UK)  were  organised 
between  2013  and  2014  by  the  Romanian  Ministry  of  National  Education,  the  Ministry  of 
Health,  the  Romanian  Order  of  Nurses,  Midwives  and  Medical  Assistants  and  the  National 
Commission of Hospitals Accreditation. 

The  programme  started  in  the  academic  year  2014/2015  and  and  according  to  information 
provided by the Romanian Ministry of Education and Research, more than 3000 graduates at 
post-secondary  level  and  23  graduates  at  higher-education  level  completed  it  by  the  end  of 
academic year 2018/2019. 

Romania presented the programme to the Member States in the Group of Coordinators for the 
Recognition of Professional Qualifications in March and May 2018.  

Member State experts analysed the information and documents provided by Romania and sent 
feedback  on  the  results  of  the  programme  to  the  Commission.  Romania  replied  to  all  the 
questions and comments from Member States to their satisfaction. No Member State objected 
to Romania’s proposal that the graduates benefit from automatic recognition in the future. 

To  conclude,  Romania  implemented  the  upgrading  programme  negotiated  beforehand  with 
the  Member  States  to  enable  its  participants  to  upgrade  their  qualifications  to  meet  the 
minimum  requirements  set  out  in  Directive  2005/36/EC.  A  substantial  number  of  students 
have since successfully completed the programme. 

For more details, see Part V of the staff working document accompanying this report. 

26 

 
 
 
5.  RECENT DEVELOPMENTS  

Due to very different levels of ambition expressed in the national action plans and in view of 
the  often  poor  quality  of  the  proportionality  assessments  conducted  during  the  mutual 
evaluation  exercise,  the  Commission  published  two  initiatives  aimed  at  unlocking  the  full 
potential of the single market in the areas covered by the revised Directive, as part of the 2017 
Single  Market  Strategy.  The  Commission  published  a  Communication  on  reform 
recommendations  for  regulation  in  selected  professional  services46  and  a  proposal  for  a 
directive of the European Parliament and the Council introducing a proportionality test before 
adoption of new regulation of professions. 

The  Communication  on  reform  recommendations  for  regulation  in  selected  professional 
services  looks  at  how  seven  professional  services  are  regulated  in  the  Member  States.  It 
includes  recommendations  addressed  to  the  Member  States  where  regulation  appears 
particularly heavy in view of the goals it is designed to achieve (such as protecting the health 
or safety of service recipients) and when compared across Member States. The guidance relies 
on  a  quantitative  and  qualitative  assessment  of  the  level  of  restriction  (‘restrictiveness 
indicator’). This  is  an additional tool to  assist  Member States’ reform efforts  by identifying 
instances of potential overregulation. 

Directive (EU) 2018/95847 on a proportionality test was adopted on 28 June 2018 and should 
be implemented in all Member States by 30 July 2020. It lays down clear obligations and a 
legal  framework  for  conducting  prior  proportionality  assessments  before  bringing  in  new 
legislation or amending existing legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions restricting 
access  to  or  the  pursuit  of  regulated  professions.  Once  implemented,  the  directive  should 
become  instrumental  in  preventing  disproportionate  regulation  from  coming  into  place.  The 
Commission  is  currently  following  up  on  the  progress  made  in  the  Member  States  with 
implementation via the Group of Coordinators and bilaterally with the Member States. 

In 2018, the co-legislators adopted the Single Digital Gateway Regulation (SDG)48 to provide 
access  to  online  information  and  procedures,  assistance  and  problem-solving  services  to 
individuals  and  companies.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  compliance  by  Member  States  with  their 
information  obligations  under  the  Services  Directive  and  the  revised  Directive  on  the 
recognition  of  professional  qualifications  will  facilitate  compliance  with  the  information 
requirements  brought  in  by  the  SDG  Regulation.  Discussions  are  ongoing  in  parallel  in  the 
SDG  Coordination  group  to  calibrate  the  scope  and  quality  of  information  and  to  ensure 
cross-border access to online procedures. 

46 Communication on reform recommendations for regulation in selected professional services, 10 January 2017, 
COM/2016/0820 final. 
47 OJ L 173, 9.7.2018, p. 24-35. 
48 Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 October 2018 establishing a 
single digital gateway to provide access to information, to procedures and to assistance and problem-solving 
services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 (Text with EEA relevance). 

27 

 
 
                                                 
In  March  2019,  the  European  Council  called  on  the  EU  and  the  Member  States  to  remove 
remaining  unjustified  obstacles  to  the  single  market,  while  stressing  that  no  new  barriers 
should be created.49 Building on this initial request, the May 2019 Competitiveness Council 
called  on  the  Commission  to  “complete,  by  March  2020,  the  assessment  of  the  remaining 
regulatory  and  non-regulatory  obstacles  and  opportunities  within  the  single  market,  with  a 
special  focus  on  services  …  taking  the  perspective  of  businesses  and  consumers…”50.  In 
response, the Commission adopted a report identifying the obstacles  most often reported by 
businesses themselves.51 On the basis of this business perspective as well as the consumers’ 
experience as reflected in the EU Consumer Conditions Scoreboard52, published in November 
2019, the Commission adopted in March 2020 a Communication on obstacles and barriers to 
the  single  market.  In  this  Communication,  the  Commission  analysed  concerns  raised  most 
frequently by consumers and businesses, in order to identity the most relevant areas where the 
single market needs further deepening and strengthening.53 

On  invitation  of  the  European  Council  and  accompanying  the  Communication  on  obstacles 
and barriers to the single market, the Commission also developed in close coordination with 
the  Member  States  a  long-term  action  plan  for  better  implementation  and  enforcement  of 
Single  Market  rules54.  The  Commission  welcomed  the  call  by  the  European  Council  and 
developed a range of actions that aim at improving the enforcement of and compliance with 
Single  Market  rules.  Actions  that  are  particularly  relevant  for  the  regulation  of  professions 
are:  

-  The  publication  of  updated  reform  recommendations  for  regulation  of  professional 
services on the basis of the Commission Communication of 17 January 2017; and 

-  Assistance and guidance by the Commission for the Member States to improve the ex-
ante assessments of restrictive regulation under the Proportionality Test Directive. 

49 European Council conclusions of 22 March 2019 (EUCO 1/19). 
50 Competitiveness Council conclusions on "A new level of ambition for a competitive Single Market” of 27 
May 2019 (COMPET 437, 9743/19). 
51 “Business Journey on the Single Market: Practical Obstacles and Barriers”, SWD(2020) 54 final. 
52 European Commission “Consumer conditions scoreboard: consumers at home in the single market - 2019 
edition” of 28 November 2019. 
53 Communication on identifying and addressing barriers to the Single Market, 10 March 2020, COM(2020) 93 
final. 
54 Communication on a long term action plan for better implementation and enforcement of single market rules, 
10 March 2020, COM(2020) 94 final. 

28 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
6.  CONCLUSIONS 

On  the  basis  of  the  information  provided  in  this  report,  the  Commission  can  draw  some 
conclusions regarding implementation of the changes brought in by the revised Directive and 
regarding the areas that merit further work or improvement. In general, the legal framework 
under  the  revised  Directive  is  effective  in  boosting  the  mobility  of  professionals  across  the 
Member  States55.  Although  the  use  of  modern  technologies  in  the  procedure  to  recognise 
professional qualifications can be considered a success, Member States must make continued 
efforts to ensure compliance with the requirements to provide information and e-government 
via the points of single contact.  

The  Member  States  made  progress  in  addressing  various  issues  raised  in  the  ongoing 
infringement  proceedings,  though  some  areas  of  concern  remain.  Several  specific  issues 
remain pending and may require sustained cooperation to resolve them in the Member States 
concerned. 

a)  Areas of concern 

Despite the benefits of electronic procedures and well-developed administrative cooperation, 
some Member States still maintain procedural requirements that create significant burden and 
cost  for  applicants.  Difficulties  remain  too  regarding  e-government  facilities  and  the  use  of 
procedures that go beyond the practices allowed by the Directive. 

The  functioning  of  national  points  of  single  contact,  in  terms  of  them  making  available 
information and online procedures, needs to be improved in most Member States. 

The mutual evaluation exercise that run over 2014-2016 did not lead to significant reforms of 
the  rules  on  regulated  professions.  The  quality  of  proportionality  assessments  by  Member 
States  was  often  poor  and  guided  by  an  interest  to  maintain  existing  regulation.  The 
Commission’s  recent  enforcement  action  confirmed  that  many  Member  States  still  fail  to 
meet their obligations regarding the transparency of information on regulated professions and 
the proportionality of regulation with a reasonable degree of diligence. This corroborates the 
need  for  a  timely  implementation  of  the  Proportionality  Test  Directive  and  a  robust 
application. 

b)  Open issues 

Several cases of non-compliance with the revised Directive in specific Member States are still 
pending  resolution  in  the  context  of  ongoing  infringement  procedures.  The  cases  relate  to 
incorrect implementation of the provisions on language checks, cross-border service provision 
and partial access. 

55 The assessment of performance in terms of recognition rates across EU can be consulted in the Single Market 
Scoreboard, available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/scoreboard/performance_per_policy_area/professional_qualifications/index
_en.htm 

29 

 
 
                                                 
Further  studies  are  needed  to  assess  the  need  for  and  the  scope  of  possible  adaptations  to 
scientific  and  technical  progress  of  the  knowledge  and  skills  requirements,  and  of  the 
minimum lists of training subjects for ‘sectoral’ professions, which can be done by means of 
Commission delegated acts. 

Only  one  agreement  on  common  training  principles  (a  common  training  test  for  ski 
instructors)  could  be  reached.  It  has  proven  to  be  difficult  to  reach  agreement  on  minimum 
training  standards,  even  by  taking  a  bottom-up  approach.  Suggestions  from  a  number  of 
professions could not reach the required thresholds of regulation in Member States, and might 
lead to not only harmonising but also extending regulation at national level. 

The functioning of the alert mechanism raises some practical difficulties for Member States, 
in  particular  in  managing  high  volumes  of  alert  notifications  and  in  filtering  the  relevant 
alerts. 

c)  Positive developments 

Implementation of the revised Directive was effectively improved by the action taken by the 
Commission on enforcement. 

The  IMI  system  aids  the  smooth  operation  of  the  Directive  by  providing  a  secure  online 
the  European 
platform  for  administrative  exchanges,  for  handling  applications  for 
Professional  Card,  and  for  the  functioning  of  the  proactive  alert  mechanism.  Continued 
cooperation  by  the  Member  States,  legal  and  technical  support,  and  further  fine-tuning  are 
essential to ensure the system continues to work effectively. 

The  procedure  to  update  Annex  V  to  the  Directive  has  worked  well.  The  Commission  has 
regularly used its delegated powers to make the updates on the basis of notifications made by 
the Member States via the IMI system. 

The Proportionality Test Directive complements the transparency obligations enshrined in the 
Directive and will serve as a tool to prevent future disproportionate regulation in professional 
services. 

With  this  report,  the  Commission  meets  the  reporting  requirement  under  Article 60(2)  of 
Directive 2005/36/EC, as amended by Directive 2013/55/EU. 

The Commission invites the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions to take note of this report. 

30