8.8.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/3

(Case C-577/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Recognition of professional qualifications - Directive 2005/36/EC - Article 2 - Scope - Article 13(2) - Regulated professions - Conditions for pursuing the profession of psychotherapist in a Member State on the basis of a diploma in psychotherapy issued by a university established in another Member State - Articles 45 and 49 TFEU - Freedom of movement and freedom of establishment - Assessment of the equivalence of the relevant training - Article 4(3) TEU - Principle of sincere cooperation between Member States - Conditions on the basis of which the host Member State may challenge the level of knowledge and qualifications attested to by a diploma issued in another Member State)

(2022/C 303/04)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: A

Intervener: Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto

Operative part of the judgment

1.Article 13(2) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013, and Articles 45 and 49 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that an application for access to, and for authorisation to pursue, a regulated profession in the host Member State, submitted under Article 13(2) by a person who holds evidence of formal qualifications relating to that profession issued in a Member State in which that profession is not regulated, but does not satisfy the requirement of having pursued that same profession for the minimum period referred to in Article 13(2), must be assessed by the competent authority of the host Member State in the light of Articles 45 and 49 TFEU.

2.Articles 45 and 49 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as meaning that the competent authority of the host Member State to which an application has been made for authorisation to pursue a regulated profession in that Member State, is required to regard a diploma issued by the authority of another Member State as bona fide and cannot, in principle, call into question the level of knowledge and qualifications which the applicant may be presumed to have acquired by virtue of that diploma. Only where it has serious doubts founded on specific information forming a consistent body of evidence which suggests that the diploma relied on by the applicant does not reflect the level of knowledge and qualifications which the applicant may be presumed to have acquired, the authority of the host Member State may request the issuing authority to review, in the light of such evidence, the grounds for awarding that diploma, the latter authority being required, if necessary, to withdraw it. That evidence may include, where appropriate, inter alia, information submitted both by persons other than the provider of the training in question and by the authorities of another Member State acting in the course of their duties. Where the issuing authority has reviewed, in the light of that evidence, the grounds for awarding the diploma and has decided not to withdraw it, it is only in exceptional cases, where it is clear from the circumstances that the diploma is not bona fide, that the authority of the host Member State may call into question the grounds for awarding that diploma.

Language of the case: Finnish

(1)

OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.