CELEX: 62016CN0125
Language: en
Date: 2016-02-29 00:00:00
Title: Case C-125/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili (Malta) lodged on 29 February 2016 — Malta Dental Technologists Association and Others v Superintendent tas-Saħħa Pubblika, Kunsill tal-Professjonijiet Kumplimentari għall-Mediċina

30.5.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 191/11
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili (Malta) lodged on 29 February 2016 — Malta Dental Technologists Association and Others v Superintendent tas-Saħħa Pubblika, Kunsill tal-Professjonijiet Kumplimentari għall-Mediċina
   (Case C-125/16)
   (2016/C 191/13)
   Language of the case: Maltese
   
      Referring court
   
   Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Malta Dental Technologists Association and Others
   
      Defendants: Superintendent tas-Saħħa Pubblika, Kunsill tal-Professjonijiet Kumplimentari għall-Mediċina
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Is the prohibition by the Maltese health authorities, or their refusal to grant recognition to the profession of clinical dental technologists/denturists, whereby, despite the absence of discrimination in law, individuals from other Member States who have made an application in this respect are in practice precluded from establishing their profession in Malta, incompatible with the principles and the legal provisions regulating the creation of the single market, in particular those resulting from Articles 49 TFEU, 52 TFEU and 56 TFEU, in a situation where there is no risk to public health?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Should Directive 2005/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005, known as the Professional Qualifications Directive, be applied with respect to clinical dental technologists in view of the fact that, should a denture prove to be defective, the only consequence would be that the defective dental appliance would have to be modified or replaced, without any risk to the patient?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Can the prohibition by the Maltese health authorities, which is being contested in the present case, serve to ensure the aim of having a high level of public health protection, when any defective denture can be replaced without any risk to the patient?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Does the way in which the defendant, the Superintendent of Public Health, interprets and enforces Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 with respect to clinical dental technologists who have applied for recognition by the same Maltese health authorities constitute an infringement of the principle of proportionality?
            
         
      (1)  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).