Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri v Ministero della Giustizia and Marco Cavallera.
Date: 2009-01-29
48. Next, the condition laid down in the first indent of Article 1(a) of Directive 89/48 is satisfied, so far as concerns the qualifications relied on by Mr Cavallera, in that each of those qualifications was awarded by a competent authority, designated respectively in accordance with Italian and Spanish legislation.
49. So far as concerns the condition laid down in the second indent of Article 1(a) of Directive 89/48, it is evident from the file sent to the Court that Mr Cavallera satisfies the condition that the holder must have successfully completed a post-secondary course of at least three years’ duration at a university. That fact is expressly evidenced by the degree certificate which was awarded to him by the University of Turin.
50. Furthermore, as regards the condition laid down in the third indent of Article 1(a) of Directive 89/48, it follows from the homologation certificate issued by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science that Mr Cavallera has the professional qualifications required to take up a regulated profession in Spain. Even if it were to be assumed that that does not follow expressly from the certificate, it is clearly established by Mr Cavallera’s enrolment in the register of the competent professional body in Spain.
53. In that connection, it is clear from settled case-law that the need for an application, and hence a uniform interpretation, of the provisions of Community law makes it impossible, in cases of doubt, for the text of a provision to be considered in isolation in one of its versions, but requires, on the contrary, that it should be interpreted and applied in the light of the versions existing in the other official languages (Case 29/69 Stauder  [1969] ECR 419, paragraph 3; Case C‑296/95 EMU Tabac and Others  [1998] ECR I-1605, paragraph 36; and Case C‑174/05 Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie and Natuur en Milieu  [2006] ECR I‑2443, paragraph 20).
54. Furthermore, while it has been held that Directive 89/48 does not contain any limitation as regards the Member State in which an applicant must have acquired his professional qualifications (Case C‑274/05 Commission  v Greece  [2008] ECR I-0000, paragraph 28, and Case C-286/06 Commission  v Spain  [2008] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 62), that case-law nonetheless establishes a distinction between the geographical place in which education and training take place and the education system to which these belong. In those judgments, the parties concerned had pursued education and training covered by an education system other than that of the Member State in which they sought to rely on their professional qualifications.
55. Directive 89/48 seeks to remove obstacles to the pursuit of a profession in a Member State other than that which issued the diploma establishing the professional qualifications concerned. It is clear from the first, third and fifth recitals in the preamble to that directive that a certificate attesting professional qualifications cannot be treated in the same way as a ‘diploma’ for the purposes of that directive unless those qualifications were acquired, wholly or in part, under the education system of the Member State which issued the certificate in question. The Court has also stated that a diploma facilitates the taking-up or pursuit of a profession in so far as it proves the possession of an additional qualification (see, to that effect, Case C-19/92 Kraus  [1993] ECR I-1663, paragraphs 18 to 23, and Case C-285/01 Burbaud [2003] ECR I-8219, paragraphs 47 to 53).