COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS On taking stock of and updating the reform recommendations for regulation in professional services of 2017
Date: 2021-07-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: access to a profession, accountant, civil engineering, lawyer, liberal profession, professional qualifications, provision of services, real estate business, tourist guide, town-planning profession

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 9.7.2021  COM(2021) 385 final  COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS On taking stock of and updating the reform recommendations for regulation in professional services of 2017 {SWD(2021) 185 final}  
 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

On taking stock of and updating the reform recommendations for regulation in 
professional services of 2017 

I.  

Regulation of professional services: the broader context 

In January 2017, the Commission issued recommendations to the Member States on national 
reforms  for  regulation  in  professional  services.1  The  aim  of  the  recommendations  was  to 
encourage  and  assist  Member  States  in  creating  a  regulatory  environment  conducive  to 
growth, innovation and job creation. However, progress on reforms of professional regulation 
in  the  EU  has  been  rather  disappointing  in  recent  years.  Despite  the  potential  positive 
economic  impacts  that  the  reforms  could  generate,  only  a  handful  of  Member  States  took 
action  to  remove  disproportionate  regulation.  Even  then,  the  reforms  were  often  only 
prompted  by  infringement  procedures.  Some  Member  States  even  tightened  the  regulatory 
environment for certain  professions. This corresponds with the analysis made in the Annual 
Single Market Report 2021 of a single market for services that continues to be held back by 
unjustified  and  unnecessary  barriers.2  Hence,  four  years  after  the  recommendations  were 
adopted,  and  against  the  backdrop  of  an  EU  economy  severely  shaken  by  the  COVID-19 
pandemic, now is the right time to take stock of action on regulation in professional services. 
This  is  fully  in  line  with  the  recently  adopted  Communication  on  “Updating  the  2020  New 
Industrial Strategy”,3 which stresses the urgency of improving the single market for services 
as  an  important  lever  for  competitiveness  and  resilience  of  the  EU  economy.  It  therefore 
complements the actions envisaged in the mentioned Communication for a better functioning 
single market in the area of services. As announced in the enforcement action plan of March 
2020,  the  current  Communication  provides  an  update  to  the  2017  recommendations  for 
regulation in professional services.4  

Economic context 

The unprecedented shock to the EU economy caused by the COVID-19 pandemic requires a 
response on all fronts to achieve a successful economic rebound. Along with other measures, 
effective  and  impactful  structural  reforms  in  the  services  sector  could  give  a  boost  to  the 
economic  recovery  and  help  make  it  sustainable.  Services  play  a  major  part  in  the  EU 
economy, not only in terms of their direct contribution to value added and employment, but 
also  via  links  throughout  the  value  chains  and  their  vital  role  in  industrial  ecosystems. 
Regulated professional services are omnipresent in the economy and are part of many sectors 
such  as  construction,  mobility,  health,  tourism,  public  services  and  education.5  They 

1  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  on  reform  recommendations  for  regulation  in  professional  services, 
COM(2016) 820, accompanied by SWD(2016) 436. 
2 SWD(2021) 351, Annual Single Market Report 2021, accompanying COM(2021)350, “Updating the 2020 New Industrial 
Strategy: Building a stronger Single Market for Europe’s recovery”. 
3  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  on  Updating  the  2020  New  Industrial  Strategy:  Building  a  Stronger  Single 
Market for Europe’s Recovery, COM(2021) 350. 
4 Long-term action plan for better implementation and enforcement of single market rules, COM(2020) 94 final. 
5 See: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regprof/. 

1 

 
 
 
                                                           
increasingly participate in the production of goods in the context of what has been termed the 
‘servicification’  of  the  economy.6  Thus,  dynamic,  resilient  and  well-functioning  service 
markets can provide a strong basis for the performance of the rest of the economy.  
In particular, business services,7 many of which are regulated professional services, contribute 
around 13% to EU gross value added and almost 14% to EU employment.8 In addition to this 
direct contribution, they provide important input to the rest of the economy, both domestically 
and  cross-border.9  Being  mostly  defined  as  knowledge-intensive,  these  services  make  a 
significant contribution to innovation and research. 

As  clearly  demonstrated  during  the  pandemic,  digital  innovation  plays  an  essential  and 
increasing role in  service provision and thus  deserves a special focus in  work on regulatory 
fitness. Evidence shows that, although digital automation in the business services sector has 
the potential to transform the whole business model, from access to markets to the automation 
of  repetitive  tasks,  this  is  not  yet  the  reality  for  most  service  providers  in  the  EU.10  The 
emergence of new digital services thus requires rethinking the current regulatory frameworks 
with a view to making them more conducive to the innovative services needed. 

Empirical  evidence  confirms  that  excessive  market  regulation  can  significantly  undermine 
economic performance. By contrast, opening markets to competition can boost productivity, 
innovation  and  entrepreneurship,  ultimately  leading  to  better  economic  outcomes.  For 
instance,  a  recent  study  demonstrates  that  implementing  the  Commission’s  2017  reform 
recommendations  in  only  four business  services  sectors (legal,  accounting, architectural  and 
engineering)  could  generate  a  gain  in  GDP  of  over  EUR  14  billion  and  could  create  over 
50 000  more  jobs  in  12  EU  Member  States  over  three  years;  a  significant  gain  given  the 
almost  negligible  public  cost  of  these  reforms.11  The  positive  impacts  of  reforms  would 
emerge  through  improving  productivity,  lowering  price  levels  and  increasing  final 
consumption. 

Regulatory context 

The  regulation  of  professional  services  is  a  shared  competence  between  the  Member  States 
and  the  EU,  and  therefore  joint  action  is  required  to  make  regulation  fit  for  purpose.  At 
present,  according  to  the  information  provided  by  the  Member  States  in  the  regulated 
professions  database,  there  are  almost  6 000  regulated professions  across  the  EU,  with  the 
numbers  varying  greatly  by  country.12  Based  on  an  EU-wide  survey,  around  22%  of  the 

in 

EU 

trade 

work 

services 

Economics, 

2018:  Making 

6 i.e. the rising indirect contribution of services into the production of goods, either as inputs and activities within firms, or as 
outputs bundled with goods. For instance, Copenhagen Economics estimates that between 25% and 60% of employment in 
manufacturing  firms  relates  to  service  functions  and  around  14  million  service  jobs  are  embedded  in  EU  goods  exports 
(Copenhagen 
See: 
for 
https://www.copenhageneconomics.com/publications/publication/making-eu-trade-in-services-work-for-all. 
7 ‘Business services’ are sectors that support companies with a range of activities such as legal, accounting or engineering 
services.  While  regulated  professional  services  are  present  in  many  other  parts  of  the  economy,  most  of  the  professions 
covered in this communication belong to the business services sector. 
8 Eurostat, 2017. 
9 For illustration, around 5% of total input in construction in the EU is provided by architectural  and engineering services 
(Eurostat, 2019). 
10  Consortium  led  by  Prometeia  SpA  (2021):  The  impact  of  regulatory  environment  on  digital  automation  in  professional 
services. Study for the European Commission. The study covers architectural, engineering, legal and accounting services in 
12 Member States (BE, HR, FR, DE, IE, IT, NL, PL, PT, RO, ES, SE). See: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2873/310173. 
11 Idem. 
12  See  https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regprof/.  The  database  includes  information  on  the  regulated  professions 
covered  by  Directive  2005/36/EC  and  shows  some  600  different  ‘generic  professions’  subject  to  regulation.  Each  generic 
profession typically encompasses many more specific professions, which brings the number of regulated professions in the 
EU to almost 6 000. 

all). 

2 

 
 
 
                                                           
European  labour  force,  or  over  47  million  citizens,  is  directly  affected  by  professional 
regulation.13  

Indeed,  many  of  the  service  professions  are  traditionally  highly  regulated.  In  market 
economies,  regulation  is  justified  when  the  aim  is  to  correct  market  failures  caused,  for 
instance, by significant externalities or major information asymmetries. Ideally, these market 
corrections should be achieved in the least restrictive manner and at a minimum possible cost 
to market participants. However, regulatory restrictions can often be set above the necessary 
minimum, for example if influenced by the vested interests of the professional groups.  

An analysis of regulatory restrictions for the economically important professions that are the 
focus of this communication shows significant barriers to market entry and exercise of these 
professions,  and  a  wide  range  of  regulatory  approaches  taken  across  Member  States.  These 
restrictions span different aspects of access to and exercise of professional services, ranging 
from  reserved  activities  and  protected  professional  titles  to  requirements  on  legal  forms, 
shareholding  or  insurance.  The  cumulative  effects  of  the  requirements  in  restricting  the 
markets for professional services can be significant. A recent report ‘Business Journey on the 
Single  Market:  Practical  Obstacles  and  Barriers’  cites  access  to  and  exercise  of  regulated 
professions  as  some  of  the  strong  and  persisting  obstacles  for  businesses  in  the  single 
market.14   

Professions in focus 

in 

the  2017  reform  recommendations, 

this  communication  focuses  on  several 
As 
economically  important  groups  of  professions:  architects,  civil  engineers,  accountants, 
lawyers, patent agents, real estate agents and tourist guides. The focus is on these groups of 
professions due to their economic importance, their role in innovation and their contribution 
to vital economic ecosystems, as well as due to the potential gains from reforming regulations 
in these sectors. They belong to four key broader industries: business services, construction, 
real estate and tourism.   

For  example,  architectural  and  engineering  sectors  directly  account  for  1.4%  of  total 
employment  and  1%  of  gross  value  added  in  the  EU.  They  make  an  even  greater  indirect 
contribution in terms of the key inputs to other economic sectors, such as construction. Over 
50%  of  European  companies  in  the  architectural  and  engineering  sector  are  considered 
‘innovative  enterprises’.  Legal  and  accounting  sectors  together  contribute  3%  to  overall 
employment in the EU and the same percentage to overall EU gross value added, and likewise 
provide vital services to other economic sectors.  

As for tourist guides, a profession still regulated in two thirds of Member States, tourism is 
one of the major economic activities in the EU with wide-ranging impacts on the rest of the 
economy and on social and cultural aspects. Patent agents were chosen due to their vital role 
in innovation and development, as intellectual property rights such as patents, trademarks and 
industrial  designs  are  indispensable  in  many  industries.  Real  estate  activities  form  a  major 
part of the economy as a whole and play an important role in most sectors, with impacts on 
individual businesses and citizens as well.    

13 Koumenta M. and M. Pagliero, 2016: Measuring Prevalence and Labour Market Impacts of Occupational Regulation in the 
EU.  See:  https://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/measuring-prevalence-and-labour-market-impacts-occupational-regulation-
eu_en.   
14 SWD(2020) 54. 

3 

 
 
 
                                                           
Progress on regulatory reforms 

In its 2017 reform recommendations, the Commission proposed specific areas of regulation in 
selected  professional  services  that  would  benefit  from  regulatory  improvements.15  The  aim 
was  to  assist  Member  States  in  better  targeting  their  regulatory  reforms  and  achieving  the 
highest economic payoffs from the reforms, and to provide additional political support needed 
to  implement  the  reforms.  Reforms  in  professional  services  have  also  repeatedly  been 
included in the European Semester country-specific recommendations issued to a number of 
Member States. 

Despite the clear economic benefits associated with easing the regulatory restrictions on the 
market  for  services,  in  general,  progress  across  a  broad  range  of  service  sectors  has  been 
almost non-existent over the last years (Chart 1). 

Chart 1. Market barriers in the EU-27, 2006-2017. Regulatory restrictiveness is measured on a scale from 0 to 1. 
Source:  Mapping and  Assessment  of  Legal  and  Administrative  Barriers  in  the  Services  Sector,  a  study  for  the 
European Commission See: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2873/690757. 

This situation applies also to the professional services’ sectors analysed. Since 2017, only a 
handful of EU countries adopted reforms to liberalise professional services (in many cases as 
a  result  of  infringement  proceedings).  Overall,  the  reforms  only  partially  addressed  the 
Commission’s  recommendations,  with  the  result  that  there  remains  significant  room  for 
further regulatory improvements in most Member States. 

By contrast, a number of Member States have recently tightened their regulations of certain 
professions.  For  instance,  two  Member  States  have  started  regulating  the  profession  of  real 
estate agent (with a regulatory initiative pending in one more country), which was previously 
unregulated  in  these  countries.  A  number  of  Member  States  have  brought  in  restrictions  on 
certain  aspects  of entry  and exercise of legal,  architectural  and engineering services (details 
below).  

15 COM/2016/820. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Restrictiveness indicator for regulation in professional services 

As in 2017, this update of the reform recommendations is based on a thorough assessment of 
the national regulatory frameworks applicable to the seven professions in focus. In addition to 
a  detailed  qualitative  analysis,  the  overall  restrictiveness  of  national  regulation  is  estimated 
using a  composite indicator, developed in  2017 to assess the cumulative  burden of multiple 
regulatory requirements.16  

The indicator provides a quantitative basis for benchmarking the Member States’ regulatory 
frameworks for the seven professions by measuring their restrictiveness on a scale from zero 
(least  restrictive)  to  six  (most  restrictive).  It  follows  a  broadly  similar  methodology  as  the 
2018  edition  of  the  OECD  Product  Market  Regulation  (PMR)  indicators.  The  types  of 
regulatory requirements covered by the indicator remained unchanged since 2017, including:    

(1) regulatory approach: activities reserved to holders of specific qualifications, protection of 
title;  

(2)  qualification  requirements:  years  of  education  and  training,  mandatory  state  exam, 
continuous professional development obligations, etc.; 

(3)  other  entry  requirements:  compulsory  membership  or  registration  in  professional  body, 
limit to the number of licences granted, other authorisation requirements, etc.; 

(4)  exercise  requirements:  restrictions  on  forms  of  company,  shareholding  and  voting 
requirements, restrictions on joint exercise of professions, incompatible activities, etc.  

In 2017, the methodology used to generate the restrictiveness indicator underwent a statistical 
audit  by  the  European  Commission’s  Joint  Research  Centre,  which  concluded  that  the 
indicator  was  statistically  coherent  and  robust,  and  provided  a  useful  and  efficient  tool  for 
condensing  different  aspects  of  national  regulations.17  The  indicator  was  also  assessed  in  a 
study  for  the  European  Parliament,  which  concluded  that  it  “can  help  to  show  that 
restrictiveness  of  professional  services  regulation  tends  to  reduce  the  good  functioning  of 
markets  and  hence  to  reduce  growth  in  the  EU”.18  The  study  also  points  out  that,  though  it 
builds  on  the  OECD  PMR  methodology,  the  indicator  presents  the  overall  levels  of 
restrictiveness in the EU Member States in even greater detail, by including some additional 
aspects in the analysis.  

The  Member  State-specific  results  on  regulatory  restrictiveness  for  each  of  the  seven 
professions are presented below. While these results provide a useful indication of the overall 
regulatory restrictiveness and of the potential for regulatory improvements, they should not be 
used  in  isolation  from  the  qualitative  assessment  of  national  regulatory  contexts.  Neither 
should  they  be  interpreted  as  a  judgement  on  the  proportionality  or  appropriateness  of 
regulation.  Rather,  this  should  be  a  starting  point  for  the  further  comprehensive  analysis, 
where qualitative and quantitative approaches complement each other.  

II.  

Analysis by profession 

The following sections describe the regulations of the different professional services analysed. 
The concepts and (national) terminology as well as the organisation and scope of activities in 

16 For methodological details, see the related staff working document. 
17 JRC (2018): Statistical Audit of the Restrictiveness Index for Seven Regulated Professions. See: 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/jrc-statistical-audit-restrictiveness-index-seven-regulated-professions  
18 Pelkmans J. (2017): The New Restrictiveness Indicator for Professional Services: an Assessment. Study for the IMCO 
committee of the European Parliament. See: 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/607349/IPOL_STU(2017)607349_EN.pdf.  

5 

 
 
 
                                                           
the  professions  often  differ  between  Member  States.  The  analysis  takes  account  of  these 
differences and looks at the services covered in a given sector rather than national definitions 
of each profession.  

The following assessment is mainly based on:  

information provided by the Member States in the regulated professions database;  

 
  additional research by the Commission into national legislation.  

The  analysis  also  takes  into  account  complaints  or  other  feedback  from  stakeholders  on  the 
restrictions they face. This information has been checked and discussed with Member States 
on several occasions. 

Each analysis contains a graph illustrating the restrictiveness indicator. This should be read in 
conjunction  with  the  descriptive  analysis  provided  for  each  profession.  The  aim  of  the 
indicator  is  to  capture  the  relative  intensity  of  the  regulations  governing  each  of  the 
professions in every Member State. Non-regulatory barriers are not included in the indicator 
but they are mentioned in the qualitative description, where possible and where information is 
available  to  the  Commission.  The  recommendations  are  based  mostly  on  the  broader 
qualitative  analysis  and  therefore  the  scores  provided  by  the  indicator  may  not  correlate 
exactly with the reform recommendations. 

Based  on  these  recommendations,  Member  States  should  reassess  and  reconsider  the 
restrictions  imposed  on  service  providers  and  the  regulations  governing  the  selected 
professional  sectors.  In  particular,  they  should  consider  the  cumulative  effect  of  having 
multiple layers of regulatory measures. 

II.1.   Architects 

Although most EU Member States  regulate the profession of architect  in  such a  way that  it 
qualifies  for  automatic  recognition  under  the  Professional  Qualifications  Directive,  there 
remain significant differences in the approach taken. Several countries assign the architecture 
activities  to  one  regulated  profession  (e.g.  Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Greece,  France, 
Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta), while others take a more fragmented approach to 
regulation  (e.g.  Poland,  Lithuania,  Latvia)  with  different  activities  reserved  to  closely 
related  professions  (e.g.  architectural  technologists,  landscape  architects,  urban  planners, 
interior architects) or carried out by more specialised/certified specialists (e.g.. architects with 
additional  attestations  for  specific  fields  of  construction).  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland  and 
Sweden do not regulate the profession stricto sensu but regulate specific modes of pursuit or 
use other forms of checks of competence specific to the construction sector. 

In 2017, the Commission made a number of recommendations for the profession of architects, 
in  particular  regarding  the  wide  scope  of  reserved  activities,  the  impact  of  shareholding, 
company  form  and  multidisciplinary  activity  restrictions,  and  the  effects  of  fragmented 
regulatory systems / multiple certification requirements. 

Based on the information available, the Member States have carried out several reforms since 
2017,  but  with  rather  limited  levels  of  ambition.  In  a  few  instances,  the  reforms  resulted  in 
tighter regulatory requirements. 

6 

 
 
 
 
Chart 2. Restrictiveness indicator: Architects19  

Source: European Commission, 2021. 

Chart 2 shows the relative position of Member States in terms of restrictiveness in the access to and exercise of the profession 
of  architect,  according  to  the  updated  restrictiveness  indicator  developed  by  the  Commission.  Compared  to  2017,  the 
indicator was slightly revised to better capture the scope of activities reserved to architects and the existence of additional 
certification/attestation schemes, which make access to specific activities subject to additional authorisation requirements.  

The qualification requirements for architects were recently amended in a few Member States 
to reflect the minimum training requirements upgraded by Directive 2013/55/EU, for example 
in  Cyprus,  Lithuania  and  Slovenia.  Lithuania  also  brought  in  title  protection,  continuous 
professional  development  obligations  and  mandatory  membership  with  a  professional  body 
for  attested  architects.20  Slovenia  slightly  reduced  the  training  requirements,  but  brought  in 
mandatory professional development obligations. Latvia reduced the professional experience 
requirements for architects that are subject to additional certification procedures. 

The situation in countries that do not regulate the profession stricto sensu but rather regulate 
specific  modes  of  pursuit  or  use  other  checks  of  competence  specific  to  the  construction 
environment  (Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland  and  Sweden)  did  not  change  much.  The 
Commission has not noted any meaningful change in the legislation since it issued the 2017 
recommendation to ‘non-regulating’ Member States to review this model to avoid it becoming 
a barrier and is not aware of any reflection carried out on the issue. The information available 
to the Commission confirms the initial findings that the differences between the two models 
may  be  less  significant  than  they  might  appear  where  ‘non-regulating’  countries  use 
certification of competences of architects, ad hoc or case-by-case evaluation of competences 
in order to provide specific services (e.g. submit plans or building permits). For instance, in 
Finland, the authorities decide on the qualifications of lead, building and special designers on 
a case-by-case basis in the process of granting construction permits. In addition to checks for 
building  permits,  Sweden  regulates  the  activities  of  certain  certified  specialists  (for  fire 
safety,  ventilation,  access  for  people  with  disabilities,  culture  preservation),  building  site 
coordinators  and  technical  experts.  Estonia  initiated  a  reform  to  simplify  the  detailed 
certification rules for ‘lead specialists’21, but the reforms did not bring substantive changes to 
the access conditions. 

The  greatest  differences  between  Member  States  can  be  seen  in  the  reserved  activities. 
Architectural design and planning activities, preparation, submission and signing of technical 

19  The  indicator  shows  the  overall  degree  of  regulatory  restrictiveness  on  a  scale  from  0  (least  restrictive)  to  6  (most 
restrictive).  The  2017  scores  were  recalculated  to  take  into  account  methodological  adjustments  and  new  information 
received from Member States. 
20 I.e. architects subject to additional attestation procedures in order to carry out specific activities. 
21 In Estonia, any company that wishes to provide services in the sectors of construction, design, building surveys, energy 
audits, owner supervision, consultancy on building projects and buildings, and issuing energy certificates must register in the 
Register of Economic Activities and name a ‘lead specialist’ for that particular field. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
control  and  compliance  documentation,  typically  are  reserved  to  qualified  architects  in  all 
countries  that  regulate  the  profession.  Many  countries  also  reserve  to  architects  activities  in 
the construction sector on cost management and construction monitoring. Other services, such 
as  landscape  architecture,  urban,  territorial  planning  and  interior  design  are  reserved  to 
architects to varying degrees across EU Member States. A few countries reserve only specific 
services, e.g. Germany reserves only the service of submitting documents for building permit 
applications,  and  Austria  exclusively  reserves  the  service  to  draw  up  public  documents. 
When  countries  reserve  certain  professional  activities  like  this,  they  tend  to  be  shared  with 
related  professions,  particularly  civil  engineers  or  neighbouring  professions,  such  as 
landscape architects, urban planners, spatial planners and interior designers. 

The  Commission  notes  that  very  few  changes  appear  to  have  been  made  in  response  to  the 
2017  recommendations  regarding  the  wide  scope  of  activities  reserved  to  architects.  For 
instance,  Portugal  opened  up  the  reserved  service  to  apply  for  building  project  approval, 
which  is  now  open  to  engineers,  and  it  announced  further  reforms.  Similarly,  Croatia 
deregulated the activity of interior design and made it open to all.22 

Another  major  difference  between  Member  States  identified  in  2017  was  the  existence  of 
‘unitary’ versus ‘fragmented’ systems. Member States with a unitary system allow architects 
to  provide  a  broad  range  of  services,  while  in  other  Member  States,  competences  and/or 
responsibilities are spread over different  categories of professionals.  In this communication, 
the  Commission  looked  more  closely  at  whether  the  profession  is  fragmented  by  assessing 
any requirements for additional certification or attestation schemes for architects  in  order to 
provide  specific  professional  services  (including  additional  professional  experience 
requirements).  

Based  on  the  available  information,  the  analysis  found  a  fragmentation  of  the  architect 
profession  to  varying  degrees  in  several  countries  (e.g.  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Poland).  In 
Latvia, to acquire an independent right to exercise the profession, the applicant is required to 
obtain  a  certificate  for  independent  practice  in  addition  to  the  general  mandatory  education 
requirements.  Although  Latvia  slightly  reduced  the  number  of  specialties  for  construction 
specialists in response to the 2017 recommendations, it still has a high number of certification 
requirements23.  The  Commission  found  that,  as  of  2017,  Lithuania  increased  the  level  of 
fragmentation  by  increasing  the  number  of  activities  subject  to  additional  attestations  for 
architects  for  ‘structures  of  non-exceptional  significance’.  Poland  reports  four  types  of 
architects24 and allows further specialisations of a technical-construction nature. Based on the 
available  information,  there  is  also  fragmentation,  though  to  a  lesser  degree,  in  Slovakia, 
Romania, Croatia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Netherlands, and Portugal.  

Although opening up certain professional activities to one or more regulated professions with 
less  stringent  regulatory  requirements  may  also  have  positive  effects,  as  reported  in  2017, 
fragmentation in the conditions set to access different activities remains an important factor to 
consider in regulating the profession, as it may cause unnecessary confusion and the need to 
seek multiple levels of authorisation. In particular, the Commission regrets the limited action 
taken by Member States to reduce fragmentation in the range of activities that are subject to 
additional requirements. The Commission also calls upon those Member States to reconsider 

22 Croatia has also abolished the chamber membership requirement for site managers. According to the Croatian authorities, 
the residency requirement has also been removed. 
23 76 certifiable fields of activities in the construction sector, of which 16 activities are in the area of design. 
24 Architects with full license; architects with a building license in the speciality of structure and construction, architects with 
a building license in the speciality of architecture; technical architects with a building license in the speciality of architecture. 

8 

 
 
 
                                                           
the proportionality of regulation in fragmented systems. In particular, they should assess the 
efficiency of systems in spreading responsibility over different categories of professionals in 
the same area of activity, and the burden created by the need to obtain multiple certifications 
for activities that are closely related. 

The  Commission  found  that  more  progress  has  been  made  with  regard  to  reforms  on 
shareholding  requirements.  At  least  two  countries,  Austria  and  Cyprus,  reduced  their 
shareholding and company form restrictions following judgments by the Court of Justice.  

On  29 July 2019,  the  European  Court  of  Justice  (ECJ)  issued  a  ruling  in  case  C-209/18 
Commission  v.  Austria  concerning,  among  other  points, 
for 
engineers/architects  specialised  as  civil  engineers.  The  ECJ  found  that  the  (former)  law  on 
engineers/architects  infringed  European  law,  including  by  setting  restrictive  conditions  for 
shareholders25  and  by  limiting  multidisciplinary  activities  of  engineers/architects  civil 
engineers. In June 2019, a new law entered into force in Austria amending the rules on legal 
form  and shareholding requirements. While previously only certain  forms of company were 
authorised  to  set  up  professional  legal  entities,  the  new  law  authorises  all  legal  forms  of 
company.  It  also  opened  up  the  rules  on  share  ownership,  which  can  be  held  not  only  by 
architectural/civil  engineering  firms  or  natural  persons,  but  also  by  architecture/engineering 
companies established in another EU/EEA Member State or in Switzerland.  

requirements 

the 

In addition,  the 2017  recommendations invited  Austria  to  revise  the exclusive scope of the 
activity  of  architectural  firms  (the  provision  of  architecture  services)  which  significantly 
limits the scope to  exercise this profession along with  other professions.  Although the 2019 
reforms  did  not  take up  this recommendation, the new law is  expected to be adopted in  the 
first half of 2021 to take account of the judgment of the Court on this matter.26  

The  Commission  also  notes  the  progress  made  by  Cyprus  in  reducing  the  shareholding 
requirements. Although previously shareholding in architectural companies was fully reserved 
to  members  of  the  Cyprus  Scientific  and  Technical  Chamber  (ETEK),  the  amendments 
adopted in 2017 in response to the infringement proceedings reduced the requirements to at 
least  51%.  By  contrast,  the  Commission  regrets  that  Malta  still  has  the  100%  shareholding 
requirement, despite the 2017 recommendations to reduce this requirement. 

Despite announcements in its 2016 national action plan, Germany has not made progress in 
harmonising its shareholding/voting requirements nationwide.  

The  situation  regarding  mandatory  professional  insurance  requirements  remains  unchanged 
since 2017. 

There are rules on tariffs in seven countries, mostly in the form of recommended prices for all 
or some services (Croatia, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland and Slovenia).  

On  this  point,  the  Commission  notes  the  progress  made  by  Germany  to  implement  the  ECJ 
judgment  in  case  C-377/17  Commission  v.  Germany,  as  Germany  has  amended  its  tariff 
restrictions  applicable  to  architects  and  engineers.  The  new  rules  that  entered  into  force  on 
1 January 2021 maintained a list of tariff ranges, but clarified that these could be used as basis 

25  Under  the  former  law,  only  natural  persons  and  civil  engineering  companies  could  be  members  of  a  company  of 
architects/engineers, and only natural persons who are members of such a company and hold the majority of its shares could 
be appointed managers and representatives of the company. 
26 The ECJ ruled that “Austria has not put forward any specific arguments to show that other less restrictive measures, such 
as  the  adoption  of  rules  on  the  internal  organisation  of  a  multidisciplinary  company  suggested  in  argument  by  the 
Commission,  would  not  be  suitable  for  ensuring  the  impartiality,  independence  and  integrity  of  [an  architect/engineer] 
carrying on his activity within such a company”. 

9 

 
 
 
                                                           
for prices agreed between contracting parties and parties could choose not to follow the list, 
by written agreement. Bulgaria prohibits prices for providing design services at below cost. 

Nine countries maintain light advertising restrictions that are limited to a ban on advertising 
that is comparative in nature or not in line with professional ethics.  

Recommendations 

Member States with a wide scope of reserved activities should reassess the impact of these 
restrictions.  

Austria,  Belgium,  Czechia,  France,  Germany,  Italy,  Romania,  Slovakia,  Spain  and 
Portugal  should  consider  the  impact  of  the  shareholding  and/or  company  form  restrictions 
they have, in addition to other requirements.  

Austria  should  assess  the  proportionality  of  the  restrictions  it  sets  on  multidisciplinary 
activities (pending adoption of the new law in response to the ECJ judgment). 

Malta needs to review the requirement that 100% of the shares of a company must be held by 
professionals. 

Member States with a fragmented system governing the profession or multiple certification 
requirements, like Latvia, Lithuania or Poland, should reassess the impact of this system on 
the free movement of professionals and whether potential obstacles can be justified. 

Member States that make professional certification mandatory for non-regulated professions 
or  that  use  other  forms  of  checks  and  balances,  especially  for  the  provision  of  specific 
services,  should  review  the  overall  coherence  and  practical  effects  of  this  requirement  to 
avoid it becoming a barrier to access to the profession. 

Lithuania  is  invited  to  review  and  communicate  the  specific  reasons  for  considering  that 
attestations for ‘structures of non-exceptional significance’ are necessary and proportionate. 

II.2.   Civil engineers 

The overall situation in the regulation of the profession of civil engineer is broadly the same 
in  2021  as  it  was  in  2017.  As  reported  in  2017,  there  are  many  similarities  across  Member 
States,  in  particular  in  the  way  they  pursue  the  same  general  interests  when  regulating  the 
profession. However, the regulatory approach still varies from one Member State to another.  

Although most Member States consider regulating the profession to be necessary to ensure the 
quality  and  safety  of  civil  engineering  services,  Member  States  such  as  the  Netherlands  or 
Sweden have found other ways than regulating the profession stricto sensu to ensure quality 
or meet the objectives to safeguard the general interest.  

However, differences between the two approaches may be less significant than might appear 
where  countries  that  do  not  regulate  the  profession  in  the  usual  sense,  for  instance  Finland 
and  Sweden,  use  certification  of  competences  of  civil  engineers  or  an  ad  hoc  evaluation  of 
competences  or  experience  on  a  case-by-case  basis  as  a  condition  for  engineers  to  provide 
specific services (e.g. submission of building plans or applications for permits). This is why in 
2017, the Commission recommended to ‘non-regulating’ Member States to review this model 
to avoid it becoming a barrier for exercising these activities. The Commission has not noted 
any change in the legislation of ‘non-regulating’ countries in response to this recommendation 
and is not aware of any consultations carried out on the matter. 

10 

 
 
 
 
Chart 3. Restrictiveness indicator: civil engineers27  

Source: European Commission, 2021. 

Chart  3  shows  the  relative  position  of  Member  States  in  terms  of  the  level  of  restrictiveness  to  access  and  exercise  the 
profession of civil engineer, according to the new restrictiveness indicator. Since 2017, the indicator was slightly  revised to 
better  capture  additional  certification/attestation  schemes,  which  make  access  to  specific  activities  subject  to  additional 
authorisation requirements. 

Another  major  difference  between  Member  States  identified  in  2017  was  the  existence  of 
‘unitary’  versus  ‘fragmented’  systems.  Member  States  with  a  unitary  system  allow  civil 
engineers to carry out a broad range of services, while in other Member States, competences 
and/or responsibilities are spread over different categories of engineers.  

This latter ‘fragmented’ approach is taken, to varying degrees, in Croatia, Czechia, Greece, 
Hungary,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania, 
Slovenia, Slovakia, and Spain. For instance, in Romania there are four regulated professions 
in the category civil engineer and there are six in Poland. 

In  2017,  the  Commission  recommended  to  Member  States  with  fragmented  systems 
governing  the  profession  or  with  multiple  layers  of  requirements  depending  on  the  specific 
activity,  like  Latvia,  to  assess  the  impacts  of  their  systems  on  the  free  movement  of 
professionals and whether potential obstacles could be justified.  

Latvia  had  a  particularly  fragmented  system,  with  many  different  specialties  and  about  80 
types  of  certifications  required  for  civil  engineers  in  a  range  of  services.  In  2017,  Latvia 
carried  out  a  reform,  which  resulted  in  removing  a  number  of  specialties  of  civil  engineer 
(building  civil  engineer,  transport  construction  civil  engineer,  heat  and  gas  technology  civil 
engineer,  water  technology  civil  engineer,  hydrotechnic  construction  civil  engineer);  these 
activities now come under the list  of services reserved to  civil  engineers. At the same time, 
Latvia  repealed  the  regulatory  requirements  for  construction  technician,  building  surveyor, 
and hydrographer. However, despite these reforms, multiple certification requirements in this 
sector remain in Latvia (76 counted). 

Following a reform in 2017, Slovenia reduced the number of specialties in the field of civil 
engineering from five to two (chartered engineer and building site coordinator) but brought in 
other  requirements  (such  as  title  protection  for  both  professions  and  mandatory  continued 
professional development for chartered engineers).   

Lithuania  made  the  legislation  more  stringent  by  requiring  a  specific  attestation  for 
‘structures of non-exceptional significance’. Lithuania claims that, based on past experience, 
this  is  necessary  to  protect  public  interest  objectives.  Lithuania  has  committed  to 

27  The  indicator  shows  the  overall  degree  of  regulatory  restrictiveness  on  a  scale  from  0  (least  restrictive)  to  6  (most 
restrictive).  The  2017  scores  were  recalculated  to  take  into  account  methodological  adjustments  and  new  information 
received from Member States. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
communicate  further  details  on  the  specific  reasons  for  considering  why  such  requirements 
are necessary and proportionate. 

In  view  of  the  above,  the  Commission  regrets  the  limited  action  taken  on  this  front.  While 
opening  up  certain  professional  activities  to  one  or  more  regulated  professions  with  less 
stringent  regulatory  requirements  may  also  have  positive  effects,  as  reported  in  2017,  the 
combination of unitary and fragmented systems  can make access  to  these activities difficult 
and complex and can create barriers to the free movement of civil engineers. Questions arise 
also with regard to the proportionality of regulation in fragmented systems, notably where a 
range of activities is subject to additional requirements. In particular, Member States should 
assess  the  efficiency  of  systems  that  spread  responsibility  over  different  categories  of 
professionals  in  the  same  area  of  activity  (e.g.  those  who  are  responsible  for  design,  others 
who are responsible for construction, and others still responsible for supervision or for small 
structures versus significant structures), and the burden created by the need to obtain multiple 
certifications for services that are closely related. 

Differences in the organisation of the profession are also reflected in the reserved activities, 
which  vary  by  country.  In  general,  Member  States  mainly  reserve  design  and  construction 
services.  In  2017,  the  Commission  recommended  to  Member  States  that  have  a  particularly 
wide scope of reserved activities such as Austria, Czechia, Italy, Malta, Poland, Portugal, 
Romania and Spain to reconsider their scope.  Malta was invited to clarify which activities 
are  reserved  to  the  ‘Periti’.  Spain  was  also  invited  to  reassess  the  requirement  to  obtain 
authorisation from the professional organisation for certain projects/engineering works.  

However,  none  of  these  Member  States  have  revised  their  regulations.  Portugal  restricted 
even more access to reserved activities, although the Portuguese Competition Authority had 
proposed reducing the range of reserved activities while maintaining the quality and the safety 
standards.  Portugal  almost  completely  removed  the  acquired  rights  of  engineers  whose 
diplomas are listed in Annex VI to Directive 2005/36/EC to carry out architectural projects. 
This restriction triggered enforcement action by the Commission and remains unresolved. 

More  progress  was  made  on  shareholding  requirements  in  the  engineering  profession.  In 
2017,  the  Commission  recommended  to  Cyprus  and  Malta  to  review  the  requirement  that 
100% of the shares of a company must be held by professionals. The Commission also invited 
Austria,  Germany  and  Slovakia  to  assess  the  proportionality  of  their  shareholding 
requirements and, for Austria, the restrictions on multidisciplinary activities. 

Shareholding limitations that go beyond requiring a simple majority of shares in a company to 
be held by members of the profession, were found by the European Court of Justice to breach 
EU  law  in  case  C-209/18  concerning,  among  others,  shareholding  and  limitations  of 
multidisciplinary  activities  for  civil  engineers  in  Austria.  Further  to  this  Court  judgment, 
Austria  amended  its  legislation  to  allow  the  use  of  any  legal  form  of  company.  The 
percentage of shares that must be held by professionals is limited to a simple majority, while 
the remaining shares may now be owned by any other natural person or by civil engineering 
companies  established  either  in  Austria  or  in  another  Member  State.  A  further  opening  of 
these  rules  as  well  as  the  removal  of  restrictions  on  multidisciplinary  activities  is  expected 
under a new law due to be adopted in the first half of 2021. 

Although  the  judgment  was  addressed  to  Austria,  the  Court  of  Justice  laid  down  general 
principles  that  also  apply  to  other  Member  States.  Therefore,  all  Member  States  should 
examine their legislation in the light of this case. 

Cyprus  also  made  progress  in  reducing  the  percentage  of  shares  that  must  be  held  by 
professionals who are members of the Cypriot chamber of engineers from 100% to 51%.  

12 

 
 
 
However, in Malta the situation remains unchanged. 100% of a company’s shares must still 
be  held  by  professionals.  In  Italy  too,  the  number  of  professional  members  and  their 
participation  in  the  share  capital  must  constitute  a  two-thirds  majority  for  decisions  by  the 
shareholders (66.66%).   

In 2017, some 14 Member States required membership with a professional organisation and 
16 Member States made it mandatory to hold professional indemnity insurance; this remains 
the same in 2021. 

Since the reforms in Germany regarding fixed fees for architects and engineers (the ‘HOAI’) 
following  enforcement  action  and  an  ECJ  judgment,  there  are  no  longer  mandatory  tariffs. 
Bulgaria  prohibits  prices  for  design  services  at  below  cost.  Comparative  advertising  is 
banned in Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Portugal. In 2021, Croatia removed the total ban on 
advertising for engineers. 

Recommendations 

Member States with a wide scope of reserved activities should reconsider the impact of these 
restrictions. 

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

Spain  should  reassess  the  requirement  to  obtain  authorisation  from  the  professional 
organisation for certain projects/works.  

Malta  needs  to  review  the  requirement  that  100%  of  a  company’s  shares  must  be  held  by 
professionals. Italy needs to review the requirement that the number of professional members 
and their participation in the share capital must constitute a two-thirds majority. 

Member  States  that  make  professional  certification  mandatory  for  non-regulated 
professions  or  that  use  other  checks,  especially  for  the  provision  of  specific  engineering 
services,  should  review  the  overall  coherence  and  practical  effects  of  these  requirements  to 
avoid it becoming a barrier for access to the profession.  

Member  States  with  a  fragmented  system  of  the  profession  or  that  set  multiple 
requirements depending on the specific activities, such as Latvia, should assess the impact of 
this  system  on  the  free  movement  of  professionals  and  whether  potential  obstacles  can  be 
justified.  They  should  also  assess  the  efficiency  and  proportionality  of  rules  spreading 
responsibility  over  different  categories  of  professionals  in  the  same  area  of  activity. 
Lithuania  is  invited  to  review  and  communicate  the  specific  reasons  for  considering  that 
attestations for ‘structures of non-exceptional significance’ are necessary and proportionate. 

II.3.   Accountants and tax advisers 

Accounting/tax advice is performed by a particularly diverse group of professions, including 
accountants,  certified  accountants  and  tax  advisers,  with  stark  differences  between  Member 
States in terms of how these professions are organised and regulated. One or more professions 
in this sector are regulated in 19 Member States, either:  

  by way of reserved activities and protected titles (Austria, Belgium, Croatia France, 
Germany,  Greece,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania, 
Slovakia);  

  by reserved activities (Bulgaria, Czechia, Hungary, Ireland); or  

13 

 
 
 
 
  by protecting the professional title only (the Netherlands).  

In nine Member States (Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, 
Spain and Sweden), none of the professions in the field are directly regulated. Other Member 
States  generally  justify  regulating  the  sector  by  the  role  tax  advisers/accountants  play  in  all 
tax systems in assisting consumers, companies and taxpayers in meeting their tax obligations. 

In 2017, the Commission made a number of recommendations applicable to the professions of 
accountants  and  tax  advisers.  They  focused  on  the  approach  of  reserving  less  complex  or 
routine tasks solely to highly qualified professionals, e.g. payroll activities or the preparation 
of  standard  tax  declarations,  as  well  as  on  a  broad  range  of  reserved  activities.  The 
Commission  also  urged  individual  Member  States  to  remove  residency  requirements  and  to 
reassess the proportionality of setting shareholding requirements and incompatibility rules.  

Based on the information available, only  a few reforms  have been adopted since  2017. The 
Commission  regrets  the  limited  uptake  of  the  recommendations  for  the  professions  of 
accountants and tax advisers, despite the potential for the reforms to have a positive impact on 
competitiveness and on openness to innovation.  

Digitalisation  in  the  services  sector  has  created  opportunities  for  new  innovative  business 
models. Accounting and tax advice services have a significant potential to capitalise on this 
development. IT tools and algorithms to support professional activities not only reduce costs 
but also reduce the complexity of a range of tasks. Reserving such tasks, and generally less 
complex  or  mechanical  tasks,  only  to  highly  qualified  professionals  would  therefore  merit 
reassessment.  The  regulatory  landscape  across  the  EU  should  be  adapted  to  allow  for  easy 
uptake,  the  development  of  digital  solutions  and  the  creation  of  innovative  and  user-centric 
business  models  to  allow  consumers  and  businesses  to  benefit  from  current  and  future 
developments.  

Broadly  speaking,  the  reforms  that  took  place  since  2017  were  limited  in  their  level  of 
ambition and partly triggered by the obligation to implement judgments issued by the CJEU.  

Germany amended its rules for tax advisers to implement the judgment in case C-342/14, but 
did not follow up on recommendations on reserved activities and shareholding restrictions.  

As another positive development, Belgium replaced the previous four accounting professions 
with  two new professions.  It  markedly reduced the level  of restrictiveness by  removing  any 
remaining  requirements  on  legal  form  and  shareholding  for  both  professions.  Belgium  also 
amended  its  rules  on  incompatible  activities  and  on  the  joint  exercise  of  the  accounting 
profession  to  implement  the  judgment  in  case  C-384/18.  The  new  professions  may  now 
provide  multidisciplinary  services  in  so  far  as  they  do  not  jeopardise  independence, 
impartiality and professional secrecy. 

A reform in 2017 in Austria provided for increased scope for professionals to cooperate with 
other self-employed professionals on specific tasks and contracts, but it also brought in a new 
obligation on continuous professional development.  

A more wide-reaching reform was adopted in Croatia, abolishing the residency requirement 
and restrictions to the legal form, which had prevented tax advisers from setting up a limited 
liability company.  Croatia decided not to extend the scope of reserved activities as initially 
planned and to continue not regulating the accounting profession. Tax advisers can now also 
take  part  in  a  multidiscplinary  company  that  also  provides  other  services  than  tax  advice, 
provided  that  the  shareholding,  voting  rights  and  management  board  requirements  are  met. 
Lastly, Croatia no longer prohibits tax advisers from carrying out other types of professional 
activities. 

14 

 
 
 
In 2019,  France extended and clarified the activities that can be performed by accountants. 
Professionals can now manage debt payment and debt collection on behalf of their client, and 
may  now  represent  their  clients  before  tax  authorities  and  social  security  bodies.  Less 
complex tasks, such as making accounting entries electronically, can be carried out by other 
persons than accountants (e.g. employees in a company), as long as they are validated by an 
accountant  “in  fine”.  France  also  removed  the  ban  on  carrying  out  commercial  acts  for 
accountants who are also auditors. 

Chart 4. Restrictiveness indicator: Accountants / tax advisers28  

Source: European Commission, 2021. 

Chart  4  shows  the  relative  position  of  Member  States  in  terms  of  restrictiveness  as  to  the  access  to  and  exercise  of  the 
profession  of  accountant/tax  adviser,  according  to  the  updated  restrictiveness  indicator.  The  indicator  does  not  take  into 
account the regulation of the profession of auditor, which is regulated in all Member States based on Directive 2006/43/EC 
on  statutory  audits  of  annual  accounts  and  consolidated  accounts.  Compared  to  2017,  the  indicator  was  slightly  revised  to 
better  capture  the  scope  of  activities  reserved  to  accountants/tax  advisers  and  the  restrictiveness  of  other  types  of 
requirements.  

Some  Member  States  reserve  both  tax  advice  and  accounting  activities  (often  shared  with 
other  professionals,  for  instance  in  Austria,  Czechia,  France29,  Hungary,  Romania). 
Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Luxembourg, Malta and Portugal reserve only 
accounting  activities,  i.e.  bookkeeping/drafting  consolidated  financial  statements,  to  an 
accounting  profession.  Croatia,  Germany,  Poland  and  Slovakia  reserve  only  tax  advisory 
services to a regulated profession.  

Belgium has one and Romania has two accounting professions, in addition to the profession 
of  tax  consultant.  Italy,  Greece  and  Luxembourg  have  two  accounting  professions  and 
Austria has three different accounting professions in addition to the profession of tax adviser. 
For  some  of  these  Member  States,  the  distinction  between  the  reserved  activities  of  the 
individual professions and their overall scope is not very clear or coherent.  

Some  Member  States,  for  instance  Austria,  France,  Germany,  Italy  and  Portugal,  have 
bans on the joint exercise of activities and only allow cooperation with a limited number of 
professions, for instance in the legal or accounting sectors.  

In Austria, only a limited number of legal forms is available for tax advisers. In  Germany, 
tax advisers can choose to set up under any legal form, but members of the board of directors 

28  The  indicator  shows  the  overall  degree  of  regulatory  restrictiveness  on  a  scale  from  0  (least  restrictive)  to  6  (most 
restrictive).  The  2017  scores  were  recalculated  to  take  into  account  methodological  adjustments  and  new  information 
received from Member States. 
29  In  France,  tax  advice  is  reserved  for  lawyers,  but  expert  accountants  may  provide  tax  advice  to  their  clients  if  it  is  an 
ancillary activity linked to their main accountancy activity. Auditors and notaries may also provide tax advice if it is related 
to their activities. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
or  the  managing  directors  must  be  tax  advisers,  lawyers,  auditors,  sworn  auditors  or  tax 
agents. At least one tax adviser who is a member of the board of directors, managing director 
or  a  personally  liable  partner  must  have  their  professional  establishment  at  the  company's 
headquarters or in its vicinity. In Croatia and Luxembourg, the majority of directors or the 
management board must be professionals.  In  France, at least one member of the profession 
practising within a multi-professional company, as a partner or employee, must be member of 
the managing or supervisory board. In Poland, the majority of the board members must be tax 
advisers, and if the management board consists of no more than two people, one of them must 
be a tax adviser.  

Austria,  Belgium,  Croatia,  France,  Germany,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Poland, 
Portugal, Romania and Slovakia require at least 50% of the shares and/or voting rights to be 
held by professionals. In Austria, for the profession of tax adviser, professionals from other 
Member States are not permitted to hold more than 25% of the shares and of the voting rights.  

Recommendations 

All  Member  States  regulating  professions  in  the  sector  should  reconsider  reserving  less 
complex tasks such as payroll activities or preparation of standard tax declarations to highly 
qualified professionals, in particular in light of developments in digitalisation in the sector. 

Greece, Italy and Romania should clarify the scope of the reserved activities and assess the 
consistency  of  the  reserved  activities  and  the  distribution  between  the  multiple  regulated 
professions in the sector.  

Croatia,  Germany,  France,  Luxembourg  and  Poland  should  review  their  restrictions  for 
the composition of management boards and/or of managing directors.  

Austria,  Belgium,  Croatia,  France,  Germany,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Poland, 
Portugal,  Romania  and  Slovakia  should  assess  the  proportionality  of  the  shareholding 
and/or voting rights requirements. 

Austria  should  review  the  shareholding  and  voting  right  restrictions  for  professionals  from 
other Member States. 

Austria should review its restrictions to the legal forms available for tax advisers.  

Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal and France should assess the propoportionality of their 
restrictions on the joint exercise of activities.  

II.4.   Lawyers 

The  national  approaches  to  regulating  the  profession  of  lawyer  are  rather  uniform  across 
Member States in the sense that all Member States regulate the profession by having reserved 
activities  and  protected  titles.30  At  EU  level,  Directive  98/5/EC  and  Directive  77/249/EEC 
facilitate the mobility of lawyers across the EU.  

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

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Chart 5. Restrictiveness indicator: Lawyers31  

Source: European Commission, 2021. 

Chart  5  shows  the  relative  position  of  Member  States  in  terms  of  restrictiveness  as  to  the  access  to  and  exercise  of  the 
profession of lawyer, according to the updated restrictiveness indicator. Compared to 2017, the indicator was slightly revised 
to better capture the scope of activities reserved to lawyers as well as the restrictiveness of other types of requirements.   

In 2017, the Commission made a number of recommendations for the profession of lawyer. 
They invited Member States to review the scope of activities reserved to lawyers and to assess 
the cumulative effects of requirements regarding legal form, shareholding and partnerships for 
lawyers.  In  addition,  the  Commission  urged  Member  States  to  remove  the  remaining 
nationality or residency requirements.  

Based  on  the  information  available,  only  a  few  reforms  have  been  adopted  since  the  2017 
reform  recommendations.  No  reform  has  been  adopted  so  far  concerning  the  scope  of 
activities  reserved  to  lawyers  in  relation  to  the development  of  the  digital  economy  and  the 
emergence  of  new  providers  with  the  rise  of  legal  tech.  However,  concerning  legal  forms 
available  to  lawyers  and  law  firms,  some  Member  States  broadened  the  scope  of  existing 
possibilities.  Austria  adopted  a  reform  in  2020  to  authorise  all  legal  forms  of  exercise  for 
lawyers  and  law  firms  except  for  public  limited  liability  companies.  Since  2017,  Italy 
authorises 
to  form  multi-professional  partnerships  and  allows  non-lawyer 
shareholding in law firms, provided that 66% of the shares are held by lawyers. Ireland has 
separated the legal regulator of lawyers from the representative body and allowed partnerships 
of solicitors to operate as limited liability partnerships. 

lawyers 

Other  Member  States  have  adopted  or  are  in  the  process  of  adopting  reforms  following 
enforcement action:  

  Slovenia repealed its nationality requirement for EU lawyers qualified in Slovenia;  
  Cyprus repealed its residency requirement for EU lawyers;  
  Italy is in the process of abolishing the obligation for lawyers to take on at least five cases 

per year;  

  Greece amended its  legislation to  recognise training and experience obtained in  another 

Member State to access legal traineeships; 

  France  adopted  in  2021  a  decree  allowing  Supreme  Court  lawyers  from  other  Member 

States practising under their home country title to access these activities in France; 

  Croatia  is  in  the  process  of  adopting  a  reform  concerning  the  conditions  applicable  to 

foreign lawyers and law firms;  

  Spain is in the process of adopting a reform concerning procuradores which would repeal 
fixed tariffs, allow multidisciplinary partnerships between lawyers and procuradores and 
create a single education pathway for lawyers and procuradores.  

31  The  indicator  shows  the  overall  degree  of  regulatory  restrictiveness  on  a  scale  from  0  (least  restrictive)  to  6  (most 
restrictive).  The  2017  scores  were  recalculated  to  take  into  account  methodological  adjustments  and  new  information 
received from Member States. 

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
The rules on access to and the pursuit of the legal profession are among the most stringent in 
the business services sector. In terms of qualification, a higher education with a law degree is 
required in all Member States, followed by a mandatory traineeship or additional professional 
qualifications and a bar examination. The minimum total duration of education and training to 
access the profession varies between 5.5 years (e.g France, Greece, Portugal, Spain) and 9 
years  (e.g  Finland,  Slovenia).  Continuous  professional  development  is  mandatory  in  most 
Member  States,  except  for  Czechia,  Greece,  Malta,  Slovakia  and  Spain  where  it  is 
voluntary.   

All Member States reserve to lawyers activities related to the representation of clients before 
judicial authorities, although some allow the activity to be shared with other legal professions. 
In Malta “Advocates” and “Legal procurators” are both able to represent clients before lower 
courts. Spain shares the representation before the Court between abogados (defence of client) 
and  procuradores  (technical  representation  and  notification  of  documents  to  the  courts).  In 
Poland, both attorneys at law (legal advisers) and advocates can represent clients before the 
courts32. In Ireland, solicitors represent the client in the lower courts while barristers advise 
solicitors and can argue cases in all courts33.  

Certain Member States impose additional professional qualification requirements in order to 
practise in the highest courts (Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and the 
Netherlands). In addition, some of these countries (e.g. Belgium, France and Germany) put 
quantitative restrictions on the number of offices available to practise in the supreme courts. 
Since  2017,  France  has  increased  gradually  the  number  of  offices  available  and  adopted  in 
2021  a  decree  allowing  access  to  these  activities  under  certain  conditions  for  lawyers  from 
other Member States practising under their home country title.  

In  many  Member  States,  new  providers  have  established  themselves  and  provide  legal 
services using algorithms and machine learning solutions. These developments are the subject 
of  intense  debates  and  have  given  rise  to  court  proceedings  regarding  the  difficulty  to 
determine  what  constitutes  legal  advice  in  areas  such  as  the  provision  of  online  legal 
consultations,  debt  collection  and  automated  drafting  of  legal  documents.  At  the  same  time 
these  developments  have  sparked  demand  by  the  legal  profession  to  adapt  the  regulatory 
framework  to  facilitate  the  adoption  of  such  legal  tech  solutions.  In  Germany,  government 
bills aim to promote consumer-friendly legal services on the market by opening certain legal 
services to legal tech operators while ensuring a level playing field between lawyers and debt 
collection service providers. 
Most  Member  States  impose  strict  incompatibility  rules  and  multidisciplinary  restrictions34.  
All  Member  States  have  either  a  general  rule  to  avoid  conflicts  of  interest  or  detailed 
incompatibility  rules  that  prohibit  the  exercise  of  certain  activities  such  as  trade  or  salaried 
employment, except for those explicitly allowed (e.g. teaching or research). Multidisciplinary 
restrictions  range  from  a  total  ban  (e.g  in  Czechia,  Latvia,  Lithuania)  to  allowing  certain 
multidisciplinary  activities  with  a  limited  number  of  professions  (France,  Germany,  the 
Netherlands).  In  Estonia, lawyers may participate in  the management of a company where 
such participation is compatible with the professional activities of an ‘advokaat’ and does not 
compromise  the  lawyer’s  independence.  In  France,  professionals  can  set  up  a  “société 
pluriprofessionnelle  d’exercice”  grouping  different  legal  and  accounting  professions.  In 

32 Only attorneys-at-law can work in an employment relationship; advocates cannot.  
33 A client cannot engage a barrister directly; this must be done through a solicitor. 
34 See Case C-309/99 Wouters. 

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Belgium, lawyers are allowed to organise certain forms of cooperation with a limited range of 
other professions but are not allowed to do so in the form of a limited liability company.  

Concerning authorised legal forms of exercise for lawyers, many Member States allow a wide 
range  of  legal  forms  but  exclude  certain  forms  (such  as  public  limited  liability  company  in 
Austria, commercial forms in France or with the limitation that shares cannot be traded on 
the  stock  exchange  in  Belgium).  Ordinary  partnerships  are  generally  allowed  and  in  many 
Member  States  professional  services  can  also  be  provided  under  the  form  of  a  professional 
company. A number of countries allow lawyers to set up as a limited liability company, for 
instance  Austria,  Belgium,  Cyprus,  Finland,  France  and  Germany.  Ireland  brought  in 
regulations in November 2019 to allow partnerships of solicitors to set up as limited liability 
partnerships.  Following  a  reform  in  2020,  Austria  broadened  the  range  of  legal  forms 
available for law firms with the exception of public limited liability companies. However, in a 
majority of Member States, it is not possible to set up limited liability companies for lawyers.  

The  possibility  to  set  up  a  law  firm  under  a  specific  legal  form  is  strongly  linked  to 
shareholding and voting rights requirements. A vast majority of Member States require all the 
shares  to  be  held  by  lawyers.  In  some  Member  States,  there  are  also  limitations  as  to  the 
number  of  law  firms  in  which  a  lawyer  can  be  shareholder,  i.e.  in  Estonia  or  Hungary,  a 
lawyer  may  be  a  shareholder  of  only  one  company  of  advocates.  A  limited  number  of 
Member States allow non-lawyers to participate in law firms. In Spain, non-lawyer ownership 
of companies (up to 49 %35) is possible, as it is in France but only for legal and accounting 
professions,  in  Italy  (up  to  34%),  in  Poland  (but  only  for  legal  professions)  and  in  the 
Netherlands (but only for notaries/patent agents and tax advisers). In Germany, over 50 % of 
the  shares  of  a  company  must  be  held  by  lawyers  and  only  other  legal  or  accounting 
professionals may be shareholders. In Denmark and Sweden, at most 10% of the shares can 
be held by non-lawyers. No Member States allow purely financial participation. In Germany, 
a  reform  proposal  from  January  2021  proposes  to  waive  the  majority  requirements  for  the 
board of legal companies36, to allow the one-person limited company and to allow all liberal 
professions to set up a company together with lawyers and to be shareholders.   

In the vast majority of the Member States, lawyers can advertise their services, provided that 
the communications comply with professional ethics. However, in Bulgaria, Croatia, Malta, 
Poland  and  Slovenia,  lawyers  are  still  subject  to  a  total  ban,  in  breach  of  Article  24  of 
Directive 2006/123/EC. 

Free agreement on the amount of fees between the lawyer and the client appear to be the norm 
in the vast majority of the Member States. However, in Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece 
and  Poland,  lawyers  must  follow  fixed  or  minimum  tariffs.  Croatia  is  in  the  process  of 
bringing in the possibility to derogate from those fixed minimum fees by written agreement 
between  the  client  and  the  lawyer.  A  pending  legislative  change  in  Spain  will  remove 
minimum tariffs for procuradores.  

Recommendations 

All Member States that reserve the provision of legal advice exclusively to lawyers should 
ensure that legal services can develop and innovate with the development of digital solutions 
without being hampered by an excessively broad scope of reserved activities. Bulgaria should 
maintain an open regime for legal services.  

35 When the profession is not considered as incompatible with the profession of lawyer. 
36 With the exception of companies that want to hold the title of “Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft”. 

19 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
All Member States should assess legal form and shareholding requirements, incompatibility 
rules  and  multidisciplinary  restrictions,  taking  into  account  in  particular  the  need  for 
innovation  and  to  roll  out  digital  solutions  and  emerging  business  models.  Ireland  should 
adopt all the implementing measures under the 2015 Legal Services Regulation Act to enable 
lawyers to provide multidisciplinary services.  

Belgium and Germany should bring in more transparency and review the proportionality of 
access  rules  for  lawyers  wishing  to  practise  before  their  respective  supreme  courts,  and  in 
particular  clarify  the  rules  applicable  to  EU  lawyers.  Germany  should  review  the  need  to 
maintain  minimum  age  restrictions  for  practising  before  the  Federal  Court  of  Justice 
(Bundesgerichtshof), in exchange for  measures that appear to be better suited to achieving the 
set objectives, such as professional experience. 

Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Malta,  Poland,  Slovenia  need  to  remove  all  total  bans  on  commercial 
communications for lawyers.  

II.5.  Patent/trademark agents 
The profession of patent/trademark agent37 is regulated in all but two Member States, i.e. only 
Denmark and Malta do not regulate this business service.38 

Chart 6. Restrictiveness indicator: Patent / trademark agents39  

Source: European Commission, 2021. 

Chart  6  shows  the  relative  position  of  Member  States  in  terms  of  restrictiveness  as  to  the  access  to  and  exercise  of  the 
profession of patent/trademark agent, according to the updated restrictiveness indicator. Compared to 2017, the indicator was 
slightly  revised  with  a  view  to  better  capturing  the  scope  of  activities  being  reserved  to  patent  agents  as  well  as  the 
restrictiveness of other types of requirements.  

While the need of the necessary expertise for often highly complex intellectual property laws 
and technical aspects of innovations as well as the wish to protect clients (e.g. right holders) 
from  improper  handling  of  procedures  might  be  valid  reasons  for  regulating  the  profession, 
rules on access  to  and exercise of the profession must be proportionate. Therefore, in  2017, 
the Commission made a number of recommendations for the profession of patent/trademark 
agents,  which  focused  on  the  scope  of  the  reserved  activities;  multiple  layers  of  regulatory 
measures, such as requiring multiple years of professional experience or professional training 

37 In a number of Member States, patent agents are called patent attorneys (for instance in AT and DE ‘Patentanwälte’). 
38 The existence of the qualification of European Patent Agent based on the European Patent Convention signed by all EU 
Member  States  should  also  be  mentioned.  This  qualification  allows  the  professional  to  use  the  mentioned  title  when 
representing before the European Patent Office. However, this qualification does not allow the exercise of the profession of 
patent agent in the signatory countries that regulate the profession. 
39  The  indicator  shows  the  overall  degree  of  regulatory  restrictiveness  on  a  scale  from  0  (least  restrictive)  to  6  (most 
restrictive).  The  2017  scores  were  recalculated  to  take  into  account  methodological  adjustments  and  new  information 
received from Member States. 

20 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
in addition to basic training requirements; shareholding requirements and restrictions on joint 
exercise; as well restrictions applying to cross-border situations. 

In  addition,  the  European  Court  of  Justice  (ECJ)  found  in  a  case  concerning  patent  agents 
rules in Austria that a seat requirement as well as rules on shareholding and multidisciplinary 
rules breached Articles 14, 15 and 25 of the Services Directive.40 

Based on the information available, since the 2017 recommendations, reforms were enacted to 
various  degrees  in  Austria,  Belgium,  Estonia,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Lithuania, 
Latvia and Poland. 

Among the positive developments, Austria carried out a reform in 2019, taking into account 
some  of  the  recommendations  such  as  opening  up  education  requirements  and  slightly 
shortening the length of the required prior professional experience. It also relaxed the rules on 
shareholding,  abolished  the  rules  on  voting  rights  and  lifted  certain  restrictions  on  joint 
exercise. In May 2021, Austria adopted further changes to comply with the above-mentioned 
Court judgment. 

Hungary  also  recently  liberalised  the  rules  concerning  the  restrictions  for  which  the 
Commission  had  recommended  making  a  proportionality  assessment.  Although 
in 
professional companies, 75% of the shares had to be held by patent agents, Hungary reduced 
this requirement to  holding ‘more than 50%’.  For patent agent  offices, it  reduced the 100% 
shareholding requirement to the requirement for only one of the natural persons who can be 
members to be a patent agent and head the office. In both cases, two thirds of the votes must 
still  be  held  by  patent  agents.  Hungary  amended  the  rules  governing  the  ability  to  provide 
multidisciplinary services by softening the ban on providing other services. 

Poland  amended  the  rules  on  tariffs  following  infringement  proceedings  launched  by  the 
Commission and abolished minimum tariffs. 

Lastly,  following  Commission  enforcement  action,  Germany 
2013/55/EU for the profession of patent agent to be compliant with EU law. 

transposed  Directive 

A  number  of  countries  decided  to  bring  in  new  rules,  including  Latvia  and  Greece,  which 
brought in the profession of patent agent. Although the profession was previously unregulated 
in Latvia, the submission of patents and trademarks in Greece before the reform was reserved 
to  lawyers  who  also  had  the  exclusive  right  to  provide  legal  advice,  including  on  issues 
relating  to  patents  and  trademark  law.  The  reserved  activities  are  therefore  now  shared 
between lawyers and the newly created profession of patent agents.  

A new law in Belgium brought in additional requirements, such as title protection, obligatory 
membership linked to membership fees, mandatory insurance and to continuous professional 
development  obligations.  Although  parts  of 
into  force  on 
2 December 2020, the provisions governing the additional requirements are not yet in force as 
they require the adoption of a royal decree.   

law  entered 

this  new 

Estonia  also  added  new  requirements,  with  increased  education  requirements,  a  new 
mandatory  chamber  membership  with  continuous  professional  development  obligations  and 
title protection for members of the chamber. The requirements to have a rather long four-year 
professional experience remained unchanged. 

Although  Lithuania  revised  its  qualification  requirements  for  patent  trustees  (“patentinis 
patiketinis”) and reduced the requirement of prior professional experience, it simultaneously 

40 ECJ judgment of 29 July 2019, case C-209/18, Commission v Austria. 

21 

 
 
 
                                                           
brought in title protection, compulsory membership of a professional body, an obligation for 
continuous professional development and mandatory professional indemnity insurance. 

The scope of reserved activities differs between the Member States with some Member States 
maintaining a rather wide scope. This is notably the case for Austria, Estonia, and Hungary. 
Reservations  cover  counselling  and  representation  before  the  Patent  Office  or  other 
administrative  authorities,  drawing  up  legal  documents  in  intellectual  property  matters  and 
representing  clients  before  the  courts  in  intellectual  property  matters  (even  if  these  services 
can be provided both by lawyers and notaries in Austria). In Estonia, patent agents are also 
competent to authenticate translations and copies of documents concerning industrial property 
which are to be submitted to the authorities (shared with notaries and sworn translators).  

In  Cyprus,  which  does  not  does  not  have  a  self-standing  profession  of  patent  agent,  these 
services are exclusively reserved to lawyers. 

Prior professional experience is required in many Member States but the duration varies from 
2 years (Bulgaria) to 6.5 years (Austria). Traineeship under the supervision of a patent agent 
is  required  in  certain  Member  States  (Belgium,  Germany,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Italy, 
Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Poland). The total length of the required education varies 
between 3 years in Portugal (where there is also no traineeship or prior experience required) 
and 7 years in Germany (where in addition a 3 year-traineeship is required). Multiple years 
of professional  experience and training need to  be evaluated in  the light of the  fact that the 
services  can  be  provided,  for  instance,  also  by  lawyers  without  the  need  to  specialise  in 
intellectual property law. 

Several Member States set shareholding requirements. Cyprus requires 100% of the partners 
in a law firm to be lawyers and hence this also affects patent agent services.  Germany and 
Poland require at least 50% of the shares to be held by professionals.     

Hungary  maintains  (though  it  slightly  reviewed)  the  ban  on  exercising  the  profession  of 
patent agent with other professions, while Estonia and Germany restrict the joint exercise to 
only legal or accounting professions.   

Slovakia still requires holders of diplomas from other Member States to undergo an academic 
recognition procedure instead of recognition of their professional qualifications before being 
able  to  exercise  this  profession  in  Slovakia.  Slovak  legislation  provides  for  the  academic 
recognition procedure for access to non-regulated professions by foreign diploma holders. 

Recommendations 

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

Germany  should  reconsider  the  need  to  have  multiple  layers  of  qualification  requirements, 
for  instance  requiring  multiple  years  of  professional  experience  or  professional  training  in 
addition to basic training and should seek to offer alternative ways to obtain the qualification. 

Austria, Estonia and Latvia should reassess the condition of prior professional experience as 
a requirement to access the profession of patent/trademark agent. 

Austria,  Estonia,  and  Hungary  should  assess  the  scope  of  reserved  activities  for 
patent/trademark agents.  

22 

 
 
 
Cyprus  should  assess  the  proportionality  of  the  measures  reserving  activities  related  to 
industrial property solely to lawyers. 

Estonia, Germany and Hungary should assess the proportionality of restrictions on the joint 
exercise of the profession of patent/trademark agent with other professions. 

Germany and Poland should assess the proportionality of the shareholding requirements. 

II.6.   Real estate agents 
With the possible exception of the Nordic countries,41 the nature and complexity of the tasks 
typically  performed  by  real  estate  agents  in  EU  countries  are  very  similar.  They  centre  on 
intermediation between buyers and sellers of real property, including providing (legal) advice 
on certain aspects of the transaction. Despite these similarities, EU countries have taken very 
different approaches as to whether and how to regulate the profession of real estate agents.  
In 2017, only 14 Member States considered it necessary to regulate access to the profession.42 
Non-regulating  countries  use  other  means  to  protect  consumer  interests,  such  as  general 
legislation  on  consumer  protection,  civil  and  criminal  law.  In  addition,  self-regulation  and 
voluntary  certification  systems  serve  as  an  alternative  to  regulation  in  some  countries 
(Germany, Estonia, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Poland). 

Chart 7. Restrictiveness indicator: Real estate agents43  

Source: European Commission, 2021. 

Chart  7  shows  the  relative  position  of  Member  States  in  terms  of  restrictiveness  as  to  the  access  to  and  exercise  of  the 
profession  of  real  estate  agent,  according  to  the  updated  restrictiveness  indicator.  Compared  to  2017,  the  indicator  was 
slightly  revised  with  a  view  to  better  capturing  the  scope  of  activities  being  reserved  to  real  estate  agents  as  well  as  the 
restrictiveness of other types of requirements.  

The  wide  variation  in  the  level  of  restrictiveness  across  Member  States  led  the  European 
Commission to question the justifiability and proportionality of some of the most restrictive 
approaches. In 2017, the Commission made a number of recommendations for the profession 
of  real  estate  agents,  focusing  in  particular  on  exclusively  reserved  activities,  the  length  of 
mandatory  qualification  requirements,  the  lack  of  alternative  pathways  to  access  the 
profession,  shareholding  and  voting  rights  restrictions,  incompatibility  rules,  regional 
regulation and the need for academic recognition of diplomas.  

41 In these countries, there typically is no mandatory intervention by a notary or lawyer in the conveyancing process, and real 
estate  agents  can  work  throughout  the  whole  conveyancing  process,  including  at  the  stage  of  the  transfer  of  the  deed  and 
payment. 
42 In Spain, there is some regional regulation of real estate agent services. 
43  The  indicator  shows  the  overall  degree  of  regulatory  restrictiveness  on  a  scale  from  0  (least  restrictive)  to  6  (most 
restrictive).  The  2017  scores  were  recalculated  to  take  into  account  methodological  adjustments  and  new  information 
received from Member States. 

23 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Unfortunately,  the  follow-up  to  these  recommendations  has  been  very  limited  and  most 
Member  States  have  not  made  any  real  effort  to  re-evaluate  the  proportionality  of  the 
requirements. On the contrary, certain Member States have chosen to tighten regulation. 

Two Member States, Malta and Czechia, recently started to regulate access to the profession. 
So far these newly regulated professions have not been notified in the database of regulated 
professions, and the Member States concerned have not communicated the results of any prior 
proportionality  assessment  based  on  the  framework  set  out  in  the  Proportionality  Test 
Directive.  The  decision  to  bring  in  new  regulation  would  seem  all  the  more  surprising  in 
Malta,  which,  according  to  the  2016  Consumer  Market  Scoreboard,  was  found  to  have  the 
best performing real estate market in the whole of the EU.44 

In 2018, France brought in legislation to protect the title of real estate agent. 

Although Germany dropped its plans to bring in regulation for real estate agents,  Romania 
seems to have the intention to regulate access to the profession.  

As  regards  education,  most  countries  still  require  an  education  of  around  2-3  years,  which 
may need to be supplemented by a traineeship and/or work experience and/or an exam. This is 
in  contrast  to  countries  such  as  Croatia,  Finland,  Hungary,  Italy,  and  Malta,  which  have 
relatively low qualification requirements. Except for  Croatia,  Finland, Hungary, Italy and 
Sweden, most countries have alternative pathways to obtain the required qualifications.  

In  March  2020,  Cyprus  adopted  a  circular  interpreting  the  national  law  as  requiring  any 
natural person linked to a real estate agency to be a registered real estate agent, which seems 
to add a 100% shareholding requirement. In Malta, the new regulation limits the legal form 
under which real estate agents can exercise their profession, to that of a civil partnership. This 
means that real estate agents may not set up a company with non-professionals or any other 
professional  who  is  not  licenced  as  a  real  estate  agent.  Belgium  still  requires  60%  of  the 
shares  and  voting  rights  in  professional  real  estate  companies  to  be  held  by  qualified 
professionals. 

In  Spain,  certain  regions  such  as  Catalonia  continue  to  regulate  the  profession  by  way  of 
reserving activities and protecting the title.  

Since  Slovakia  maintains  that  the  profession  of  real  estate  agents  is  not  regulated, 
professionals from other EU Member States seeking to work as real estate agents, continue to 
face the need to follow a procedure of academic recognition of their diplomas. 

In the meantime, Slovenia removed its citizenship requirement. 

Recommendations 

Cyprus,  Croatia,  Czechia,  Ireland,  Slovakia,  Slovenia  and  Sweden  should  consider  the 
possibility  of  opening  access  to  the  activities  currently  exclusively  reserved  to  real  estate 
agents to other professionals. 

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

44 Consumer Market Scoreboard 2016, available at:  
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/consumer_markets_scoreboard_2016_en.pdf.  

24 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Croatia, Finland, Hungary, Italy and Sweden should consider creating alternative pathways 
to access the profession. 

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

Cyprus and Malta should reassess the justification for and proportionality of requiring 100% 
of shares to be held by real estate agents. 

Italy should evaluate the need for and proportionality of the ban on incompatible activities. 

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

Slovakia should remove the requirement for holders of qualifications from other EU Member 
States to go through a procedure to have their academic diplomas recognised. 

II.7.   Tourist guides 

The  profession  of  tourist  guide  is  still  regulated  in  two  thirds  of  the  Member  States,  with  a 
clear geographical focus on the south and the east of Europe.   

Chart 8. Restrictiveness indicator: Tourist guides45  

Source: European Commission, 2021. 

Chart  8  shows  the  relative  position  of  Member  States  in  terms  of  restrictiveness  as  to  the  access  to  and  exercise  of  the 
profession of tourist guide, according to the updated restrictiveness indicator. Compared to 2017, the indicator was slightly 
revised  to  better  capture  the  scope  of  activities  reserved  to  tourist  guides  and  the  restrictiveness  of  other  types  of 
requirements. 

Neither Belgium nor Bulgaria have indicated this profession among the regulated professions 
in the database of regulated professions, but it is clear that both Member States have regulated 
the profession since at least 2016.  

The recommendations from 2017 focused on the justification and proportionality of regulating 
the profession, and on the review and assessment of the scope of reserved activities. Member 
States with different regional regulations were asked to have a close look at the fragmentation 
of  the  rules  and  the  geographical  scope  of  authorisations  for  tourist  guides.  Lastly,  the 
Commission  invited  Member  States  to  review  the  lists  reserving  the  right  to  work  in  a 
significant number of tourist sights to holders of specific licences.  

45 The indicator shows the overall degree of regulatory restrictiveness on a scale  from 0 (least restrictive) to 6 
(most restrictive). The 2017 scores were recalculated to take into account methodological adjustments and new 
information received from Member States. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The  Commission  recommended  to  all  Member  States  regulating  the  profession  to  assess 
whether such regulation was necessary at all or whether less restrictive rules could achieve the 
aim  of  protecting  the  cultural,  historical,  archaeological  and  artistic  heritage  and  its  proper 
appreciation.  These  considerations,  brought  forward  by  the  Member  States  to  justify 
regulation,  were  recognised  by  the  European  Court  of  Justice  as  overriding  reasons  of  the 
public  interest  which  can  justify  a  restriction.  However,  the  proportionality  of  such  rules 
should  be  thoroughly  assessed.  Member  States  should  therefore  only  impose  rules  and 
obligations on access to and the exercise of the profession of tourist guides if this is clearly 
necessary to prevent damage to the cultural richness of a Member State. 

None  of  the  Member  States  regulating  the  profession  informed  the  Commission  about  a 
review and the Commission takes note that only very limited reforms were adopted. 

In  Slovenia,  although  the  profession  remains  regulated  with  a  wide  scope  of  reserved 
activities, access requirements were eased by abolishing pre-conditions to take the state exam. 

Lithuania changed the regulation of tourist guides in 2018, but despite the recommendations, 
the  requirements  governing  access  to  the  profession  became  more  stringent,  in  particular  as 
regards 
the  scope  of  reserved  activities.  Nonetheless,  Lithuania  did  relax  several 
requirements, for instance by abolishing the theoretical part of the state exam. 

Croatia adopted a new Act on Tourism services in late 2017. However, the amendments did 
not address any of the concerns raised by the Commission on tourist guides and even seem to 
have  worsened  the  situation.  The  new  act  did,  however,  remove  the  requirement  to  prove 
‘business ability’. 

Greece  has  not  carried  out  a  reform,  but  since  2017,  the  Tourist  Guides  Schools  of  the 
Ministry  of  Tourism  are  operating  again  providing  a  two-year  programme  to  obtain  a 
diploma.  Enrolment  in  these  schools  is  subject  to  conditions  and  restrictions.  France  also 
brought  in  a  rather  slight  opening  of  restrictions  and  additional  access  to  the  profession  by 
adding a third pathway for obtaining the requisite professional qualifications. 

Lastly, the Commission understands that in 2021, Czechia adopted a reform of the profession 
of tourist guide, resulting in regulation of the profession by protecting the title. The profession 
of tourist guide can be exercised only with a visibly placed card (I grade or II grade) issued by 
the  Ministry  of  Regional  Development  upon  application.  To  obtain  a  II  grade  card,  a 
professional qualification is required.   

Austria, Bulgaria, Malta and Slovenia reserve a very wide range of activities to holders of 
specific  professional  qualifications.  This  covers  working  as  a  guide  to  show  and  explain  a 
country’s  social  and  political  situation  in  national  and  international  contexts,  or  sometimes 
even as a  guide  at  sporting and social events  and escorting tourists from  the airport  to  their 
hotel. Such restrictions severely restrict access to these activities and must be limited to what 
is strictly necessary to protect the general public interest. 

Bulgaria  reviewed  the  regulation  for  the  profession  in  2019,  but  the  scope  of  reserved 
activities remained unchanged. Changes in the law in Slovenia did not affect the rules on the 
scope of restrictions. No changes were adopted in Austria and Malta. 

In Croatia, Italy and Spain the profession is regulated at regional level with the consequence 
that  professionals  may  have  to  obtain  different  qualifications  and  authorisations  within  a 
single  Member  State  if  they  want  to  provide  services  in  more  than  one  region.  Such 

26 

 
 
 
differences render access to and the exercise of the profession more complicated46 and might 
raise  issues  of  compatibility  with  EU  law,  in  particular  with  Article  10(4)  of  the  Services 
Directive  (Directive  2006/123/EC)  and  Article  7(2a)  of  the  Professional  Qualifications 
Directive (2005/36/EC).  

Following an infringement procedure launched by the Commission, Croatia announced that it 
would replace the 21 county-specific professional exams by one centralised exam. Spain and 
Italy  have  not  informed  the  Commission  of  any  reforms  or  clarifications  about  the  current 
system on the several different existing regulations.  

In  2016,  Belgium  brought  in  title  protection  for  different  types  of  tourist  guides  in  the 
Walloon  region.  Although  the  validity  of  these  titles  is  limited  to  this  region,  no  specific 
mutual recognition regime is planned for tourist guides from the two other regions, given that 
the Brussels and the Flemish region do not consider it necessary to regulate the profession.   

In  Slovenia,  municipalities  may  still  lay  down  conditions  for  access  to  the  profession  in  a 
given tourist area and provide for title protection for those who meet such conditions. As the 
activities reserved to tourist guides are set at municipality level, these reserves could be very 
different throughout the country.  

Croatia and France maintain lists of sites where working as a guide is reserved to holders of 
specific qualifications. This might lead to a fragmentation of the market and put a significant 
burden  on  service  providers  from  other  Member  States  who  accompany  tourists  through 
different  parts  of  a  country  and  do  not  limit  their  provision  of  services  to  a  particular  site. 
Such  lists,  in  particular  if  they  cover  a  significant  number  of  sights,  create  unjustified 
restrictions if the reasons for including a particular site have not been properly assessed.  

While  France  only  allows  qualified  tourist  guides  to  work  at  a  certain  number  of  historic 
monuments,  the  law  in  Croatia  contains  a  long  list  of  protected  localities  and  sites  (which 
include most of the Croatian tourist highlights) for which tourist guides are required to pass 
one or more separate exams. This means that a tourist guide who wants to work at protected 
sites  across  the  whole  of  Croatia  would  need  to  pass  up  to  21  separate  county-specific 
examinations, mostly organised separately per county and requiring the candidate to pay a fee 
per exam. Malta uses a similar list of protected sites. 

Following infringement proceedings launched by the Commission, Croatia announced that it 
would significantly reduce the number of sites that are part of the list of protected sites, which 
currently cover most of the main tourist highlights.  

In  2017,  Italy  abolished  its  2015  list  reserving  a  significant  number  of  sights  to  holders  of 
specific licences, by a decision issued by an administrative court.  

Recommendations 

All  Member  States  that  regulate  this  profession  should  consider  the  justification  and 
proportionality of regulating the profession. 

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

Croatia, Italy and Slovenia should clarify the regulatory framework governing tourist guides 
given the diverging regional regulations, which seem to hinder access to the market and which 

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

27 

 
 
 
                                                           
affect  national  service  providers  as  well  as,  in  some  cases,  those  providing  temporary 
services.  

Croatia and Malta should review the list of sites reserved to holders of specific qualifications 
and consider the proportionality of each restriction. 

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

III.   Follow-up actions 

The above overview shows that despite the specific guidance provided by the Commission in 
the  2017  reform  recommendations,  Member  States  have  not  made  much  progress  in  re-
evaluating  and  removing  unjustified  or  disproportionate  professional  regulation.  This 
Communication  aims  to  support  and  reinforce  national  regulatory  fitness  efforts,  and 
complements  other  EU  initiatives,  such  as  the  updated  2020  New  Industrial  Strategy,  by 
identifying specific areas of comparatively high levels of regulation and by pointing towards 
concrete possibilities for increasing the competitiveness of the single market for services.    

The Commission plans to follow up to these recommendations by closely monitoring Member 
States’  actions  in  this  area  and  continuing  a  permanent  dialogue  with  stakeholders,  in 
particular via its  expert groups. Progress  on reforms or lack thereof will also  be a recurring 
focus  of  the  dialogue  with  Member  States  in  the  framework  of  the  European  Semester  and 
Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility.  Where  national  rules  are  in  clear  breach  of  EU  law,  the 
Commission  will  engage  with  the  Member  States  concerned  and,  if  necessary,  initiate 
enforcement  action.  The  Commission 
reform 
recommendations  when  needed  and  appropriate.  The  possibility  of  developing  additional 
indicators and extending the scope to  other economically important  professions will also  be 
explored. 

to  continue  updating 

intends 

the 

The recommendations and their follow-up are complementary to the actions announced in the 
updated 2020 New Industrial Strategy.47 These actions might address similar economic areas 
and  will  facilitate  the  permeability  of  the  single  market,  including  by  exploring  novel 
approaches, to be developed in a dialogue with Member States and stakeholders, in particular 
an  assessment  of  the  merits  of  harmonised  standards  in  services  where  these  could  add 
value.48 

47 COM(2021) 350. 
48 Such initiatives could concern other services sectors than the ones covered in this Communication, depending 
on the results of the exploratory assessment to be carried out. 

28