Directives on recognition of diplomas do not preclude partial recognition, limiting scope of acitivities that applicant from another EU country may perform: judgment (C-330/03)

January 20, 2006

Luxembourg, 19 January 2006

C-330/03, Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos v Administracion del Estado

Judgment of the Court of Justice (First Chamber) on 19 January 2006 (link to English version when available).
Full text of this Judgment

Freedom of movement for workers - Recognition of diplomas - Directive 89/48/EEC - Profession of engineer - Partial, restricted recognition of professional qualifications - Articles 39 EC and 43 EC
The case was referred to the Court by the Tribunal Supremo (Spain)

The Court ruled:

1. When the holder of a diploma awarded in one Member State applies for permission to take up a regulated profession in another Member State, the competent authorities of that Member State are not precluded by Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration from partly allowing that application, if the holder of the diploma so requests, by limiting the scope of the permission to those activities which that diploma allows to be taken up in the Member State in which it was obtained.

2. Articles 39 EC and 43 EC do not preclude a Member State from not allowing partial taking-up of a profession, where shortcomings in the education or training of the party concerned in relation to that required in the host Member State may be effectively made up for through the application of the compensatory measures provided for in Article 4(1) of Directive 89/48 . However, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC do preclude a Member State from not allowing that partial taking-up when the party concerned so requests and the differences between the fields of activity are so great that in reality a full programme of education and training is required, unless the refusal for that partial taking-up is justified by overriding reasons based on the general interest, suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue and not going beyond what is necessary in order to attain that objective.

European Court of Justice
Judgment 19 January 2006 Previous Item Back to Titles Print Item

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments