Mutual recognition of professional qualifications

Question 1

Thieffry

Answer 1

Paris bar could not deny Thieffrey admission to the training stage on the grounds that he did not have the French law degree once his Belgian diploma had been recognised by the French Univeristy as the equivalent to the French law and had passed the exam for the certificate to practice as an avocate

Question 2

Heylens

Answer 2

Any decision by the host member state concerning the mutual recognition of the equivalence of qualification must have an objective basis, and the person concerned must be fully informed of the decision

Question 3

Vlassopolou

Answer 3

Where there are no national law which provided for the recognition of equivalent foreign qualifications by a competent authority (which existed in Thieffry and Heylens), Authorities at the host state must compare the requirements of the host state .

If they are equivalent they must recognise the foreign qualification .

If they only partially correspond, the host country can require the person conceded to show that he has acquired the knowledge and qualification either through a course of further study or practical experience

Question 4

Tawi-Albertini

Answer 4

Belgium recognised his lebanese qualifications and was authorised to practice in Belgium. France refused to recognise his qualifications on the grounds that his Lebanese qualifications was not included in Directive 78/686 which provided for mutual recognition by MS of qualifications in dentistry

Principle: One member state accepted the equivalence of qualifications from a non-EU state did not bind other MS where those qualifications were not listed in the directive

Question 5

Haim

Answer 5

Turkish Qualification - practiced in Belgium, but not permitted in Germany as he hasn’t completed 2 year training in Germany

ECJ: By relying on Vlassopoulou - they argued that it is not permissible under article 49 for a national authority in a host member state to refuse a person who had lawfully practiced in another MS without examining his professional experience corresponds to the requirements of the host MS

Question 6

Hocsman

Answer 6

ECJ:The applicant could rely directly upon article 49 (prohibits restrictions to freedom of establishment) even though there was a harmonising directive (which his argentinian qualifications did not satisfy the directive)

Rationale: the purpose of the directives is to make it easy for self employed person to take up and pursue activities as a self reemployed person , and therefore the principles of vlassopolou and article 49 cannot be held back by certain directives