E-3/20 The Norwegian Government

EFTA-case

Klik hier voor het dossier van het EVA-hof (voor zover beschikbaar).

Deadlines: Motivation ministry:    20 May 2020
Written observations:                    5 July 2020

Keywords : recognition of professional qualifications, relationship between Directive and EEA Agreement

Subject :

-           Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications as incorporated into the EEA Agreement by Decision No 142/2007 of the EEA Joint Committee;

-           Main Part of the EEA Agreement [Agreement on the European Economic Area];

Facts of the case:

This case concerns the right to authorisation as a dental practitioner in Norway, based on a five-year training programme from a Danish university. A Norwegian national completed a Danish training programme in dentistry. Authorization to practice independently in Denmark is granted only when completion of the training programme is followed by a year of practice. The Norwegian training programme does not require one year of practice after completion of the training programme. The application for authorization and a licence to practice in Norway was refused on the ground that she had not completed the year of practice required for permission to practice independently in Denmark. This decision was upheld first by the Appeal Board for Health Personnel and later in appeal at the District Court. The Court of Appeal came to the opposite conclusion and found the minimum criteria for obtaining authorization of art. 21(1) of the Directive fulfilled. This case raises questions concerning the interpretation of Directive 2005/36/EC. The Directive was incorporated into the EEA Agreement by Decision 142/2007 of the EEA Joint Committee. The Supreme Court requests the EFTA Court to elaborate on the substantive content of the rule in Article 21 of the Directive. The case also raises questions concerning the interpretation of Articles 28 and 31 of the Main Part of the EEA Agreement and the relationship of those provisions to the Directive.

Request for an advisory opinion:

- On article 21 of the Professional Qualifications Directive

1. Is Article 21(1) of the Professional Qualifications Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the host State may, in each case, require the applicant to produce both the relevant “evidence of formal qualifications” referred to in column 2 of point 5.3.2 of Annex V to the Directive and the specified “certificates” the home State may have included in column 4 for the profession in question, or should the term “appropriate” be interpreted as meaning that the host State must determine whether it is appropriate to require the specified certificates in a given case?

If the term “appropriate” is to be understood as requiring the host State to determine whether it is appropriate to require the specified certificates in a given case:

2. What is the legal assessment and which factors will be legally relevant in the determination of whether it is “appropriate” to require listed certificates?

3. Is it of any consequence if the evidence of formal qualifications alone provides documentary evidence of training that is deemed to fulfil the minimum criteria laid down in Article 34(2) of the Directive and if the certificate that cannot be produced relates to post-graduate practice?

- On Rights under the Main Part of the EEA Agreement

1. Is the host State under an obligation to examine the application for recognition under Articles 28 and 31 of the EEA Agreement if an applicant with training from a member country for a profession with harmonised minimum training requirements does not fulfil the criteria for recognition under Article 21 or Article 10 of the Professional Qualifications Directive?

If so:

2. What is the legal assessment and what are the legally relevant factors in the determination of whether such an applicant may derive additional rights under Article 28 or Article 31 of the EEA Agreement?

3. What importance does it have that an applicant does not have a certificate for post-graduate practice which the home State has listed in column 4 of point 5.3.2 of Annex V to the Professional Qualifications Directive, if the host State does not require post-graduate practice of applicants trained in the host State and the training completed by the applicant is deemed to be equivalent to the training offered in the host State?

4. May it be required to give an applicant full rights in the host State if the evidence of formal qualifications the applicant is able to produce does not give the applicant corresponding professional rights in the home State?

Cited (recent) case-law: C-340/89, C-238/98, C-31/00,  E-1/11 Norwegian Appeal Board for Health Personnel/A, C-365/13 Orde des architectes/Etat Belge, C-477/13 Eintragungsausschuss bei der Bayerischen Architektkammer, C-675/17; C-110/01.

Policy Area: OCW;