Case C-166/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas- Lithuania) — BB v Lietuvos Respublikos sveikatos apsaugos ministerija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Recognition of professional qualifications — Directive 2005/36/EC — Article 1 and Article 10(b) — Professional qualifications obtained in several Member States — Requirements for obtaining — No formal evidence of qualifications — Articles 45 and 49 TFEU — Workers — Freedom of establishment)
Date: 2021-07-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, free movement of workers, pharmacist, professional experience, professional qualifications, recognition of vocational training qualifications, right of establishment








C_2021338EN.01000701.xml










23.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/7






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas- Lithuania) — BB v Lietuvos Respublikos sveikatos apsaugos ministerija
(Case C-166/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Recognition of professional qualifications - Directive 2005/36/EC - Article 1 and Article 10(b) - Professional qualifications obtained in several Member States - Requirements for obtaining - No formal evidence of qualifications - Articles 45 and 49 TFEU - Workers - Freedom of establishment)
(2021/C 338/08)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BB

Defendant: Lietuvos Respublikos sveikatos apsaugos ministerija

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013, in particular Article 1 and Article 10(b) thereof, must be interpreted as not being applicable to a situation where a person applying for recognition of his or her professional qualifications has not obtained formal evidence of qualifications making him or her qualified, in the home Member State, to pursue a regulated profession there.










2.


Articles 45 and 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation where the person concerned does not hold the evidence attesting to his or her professional qualification as a pharmacist, for the purposes of point 5.6.2 of Annex V to Directive 2005/36, as amended by Directive 2013/55, but has acquired professional skills relating to that profession both in the home Member State and in the host Member State, the competent authorities of the latter are required, when they receive an application for recognition of professional qualifications, to assess those skills and compare them with those required in the host Member State for the purposes of gaining access to the profession of pharmacist. If those skills correspond to those required by the national provisions of the host Member State, it must recognise them. If that comparative examination reveals that those skills correspond only partially, the host Member State is entitled to require the person concerned to show that he or she has acquired the knowledge and qualifications which are lacking. It is for the competent national authorities to assess, if necessary, whether the knowledge acquired in the host Member State, inter alia by way of practical experience, is sufficient in order to prove possession of the knowledge which is lacking. If that comparative examination reveals substantial differences between the education and training undertaken by the applicant and the education and training required in the host Member State, the competent authorities may set compensation measures to make up for those differences.






(1)  OJ C 230, 13.7.2020.