Judgment of the court of 25 March 2021 in Case E-4/20 Tor-Arne Martinez Haugland and Others v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Ministry of Health and Care Services (Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet) (Freedom of movement of persons – Directive 2005/36/EC – Recognition of professional qualifications – Access to the profession of psychologist – General system of recognition – Notion of ‘same profession’) 2021/C 303/08
Date: 2021-03-25
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Norway, free movement of workers, health care profession, professional experience, professional qualifications, psychology, recognition of diplomas, recognition of vocational training qualifications, right of establishment








C_2021303EN.01001101.xml










29.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/11






JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 25 March 2021
in Case E-4/20
Tor-Arne Martinez Haugland and Others v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Ministry of Health and Care Services (Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet)


(Freedom of movement of persons – Directive 2005/36/EC – Recognition of professional qualifications – Access to the profession of psychologist – General system of recognition – Notion of ‘same profession’)


(2021/C 303/08)
In Case E-4/20, Tor-Arne Martinez Haugland and Others v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Ministry of Health and Care Services (Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet) – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Borgarting Court of Appeal (Borgarting lagmannsrett) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, in particular Articles 4 and 13, as adapted to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as well as Articles 28 and 31 of that Agreement, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur), and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 25 March 2021, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


Whether a profession in the host State and a profession in the home State can be considered as the ‘same profession’ for the purposes of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. That assessment must be based on a comparison between the activities covered by the profession in the home State and the activities of the profession the applicant wishes to pursue in the host State. d If the activities covered by the two professions are comparable, in the sense that they are equivalent in terms of the activities they cover, taking into account any relevant differences in the scope and nature of those activities, they must be considered the same profession for the purposes of Directive 2005/36/EC.
In determining whether a profession in the home State and a profession in the host State constitute the same profession for the purposes of Directive 2005/36/EC, the pursuit of certain activities for a limited time in the context of training subject to the condition of commitment to further studies cannot be considered the pursuit of a profession.
Differences in the degree of independence and patient responsibility may be relevant in determining the exact scope or nature of activities when assessing whether two professions are the ‘same profession’ for the purposes of Directive 2005/36/EC.










2.


The possibility of requiring compensation measures under Article 14 of Directive 2005/36/EC cannot have any bearing on the interpretation of the ‘same profession’ for the purposes of Article 13 of that directive.










3.


The expression ‘specifically geared to the pursuit of a given profession’ in point (e) of Article 3(1) of Directive 2005/36/EC must be construed as covering training that is specifically designed to prepare candidates to exercise a given profession. It does not cover qualifications that give access to a wide range of professions, or attest, inter alia, merely academic competence within a given field.










4.


Applicants who do not fulfil the requirements for recognition of professional qualifications under Directive 2005/36/EC may rely on Articles 28 and 31 EEA as a basis for pursuing a regulated profession in the host State.
In the assessment of qualifications under Articles 28 and 31 EEA, the host State must compare all diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications and relevant professional experience of the applicant with its own requirements to pursue the profession in question. If the applicant’s knowledge and qualifications attested by the diploma and relevant professional experience are not equivalent, or only partially correspond to those required, the host State must specify which training is lacking in order for the applicant to complete or supplement the training.