EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 24.6.2015
SWD(2015) 123 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Accompanying the document
Commission's Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/983
on the procedure for issuance of the European Professional Card and the alert
mechanism pursuant to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council
{C(2015) 4209 final}
EN
EN
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1.
General introduction
This staff working document accompanies the Commission's proposal for the
implementing measures concerning the implementation of the European Professional
Card (EPC) for particular professions and the alert mechanism. This staff working
document provides background on the selection of the professions for the EPC, on the
impacts of the introduction of the EPC and on the data protection aspects concerning the
two policy initiatives.
On 17 January 2014, Directive 2013/55/EU amending Directive 2005/36/EC on the
recognition of professional qualifications (the “Directive”) entered into force, and EU
Member States are expected to implement it by 18 January 2016. The amended Directive
laid down the legal basis1 for the introduction of the EPC and the alert mechanism, to
make them operational by the end of the transposition period the Commission must adopt
implementing measures.
1.2.
General introduction of the EPC
The EPC is a key element of the revised Directive. This electronic document will be
issued to professionals interested in working in another Member State, using a new
electronic procedure for the recognition of professional qualifications, through the
Internal Market Information System (IMI). The EPC will further facilitate the temporary
provision of services, and will also cover establishment cases, under the automatic
recognition and the general system.
The revised Directive laid down the legal framework of the EPC. However, to make it
operational by the end of the transposition period of the Directive (18 January 2016), the
Commission shall adopt implementing measures on the introduction of the EPC for
particular professions and on the measures necessary to ensure its uniform application in
Member States. The measures to be introduced by the implementing act will concern,
apart from the selection of the professions covered by the EPC procedure, the format of
the EPC, the application documentation requirements (including translations and certified
copies), payment modalities, handling of written applications, access to the IMI file, and
certain other technical details.
1.3.
General introduction of the alert mechanism
Article 56a of the revised Directive introduced a proactive alert mechanism, supported by
the IMI system, concerning professionals who have been prohibited or restricted from
practice on the territory of one Member State, or who have used falsified documentation
in support of their application for the recognition of their qualification.
Based on the legal principles laid down by the revised Directive, the Commission shall
adopt implementing measures for the application of the alert mechanism. These measures
shall include provisions on the authorities entitled to send and receive alerts as well as on
1
As provided by in Articles 4a(7), 4b(4), 4e(7) and Article 56a(8) of Directive 2005/36/EC
2
the withdrawal and closure of alerts, and complementary measures to ensure the security
of processing.
2.
CONSULTATION PROCESS
As provided for in Recital 4 of the revised Directive, the introduction of an EPC should
take into account the views of the profession concerned and should be preceded by an
assessment of the suitability of relevant professions and of its impact on Member States.
This assessment should be conducted together with the Member States as necessary.
In accordance with this, the Commission has carried out a thorough consultation with the
involvement of different stakeholders, including:
a) a call for expression of interest2 (October 2013) inviting professional organisations at
EU and national level to express their interest in being amongst the first professions to
benefit from the EPC and to indicate whether their respective professions were interested
in benefitting from the EPC in the light of the introduction criteria. On 9 December 2013,
the Commission published the initial results of the call for expression of interest and at
the same time contacted other stakeholders, and in particular the competent authorities, in
order to gauge their interest.
As a result of the responses received3, the Commission proposed conducting a more indepth analysis for seven professions pre-selected on the basis of their responses:
doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists, engineers, mountain guides and real estate
agents. It was announced that other interested professions would be assessed by the
Commission at a subsequent stage of the introduction of the EPC.
b) In January 2014, the Commission set up focus groups consisting of the
representatives of professional associations at European level as well as Member State
competent authorities responsible for the recognition of professional qualifications for
the 7 professions preselected for further assessment. The focus groups met on 31 January
(introductory meeting) and on 25-26 March 2014 (meeting on technical features of the
EPC procedure). Discussions in the focus groups touched upon various technical features
of the EPC and provided valuable input for future implementing rules.
c) On 7 April 2014, the Commission launched a targeted consultation4, addressed to the
professional organizations and competent authorities of the 7 pre-selected professions,
which aimed at collecting more data on the current recognition procedures (application
documents, modalities of payment, etc.) and mobility of professions.
d) On 11 April 2014, the Commission sent a separate data request to the competent
authorities asking them to estimate the possible impact on administrative costs due to the
EPC procedure.
2
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/qualifications/docs/policy_developments/131018_call-for-interest_en.pdf
3
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/qualifications/docs/policy_developments/131206_results-call-for-interest_en.pdf
4
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2014/european-professional-card/index_en.htm
3
e) On 5 and 17 June, 18 September and 20 October 2014, the Commission discussed with
Member States its initial views on the implementation of the EPC. In the latter three
meetings of the Group of Coordinators, the alert mechanism was also discussed.
This staff working document takes into account the contributions received in these
various forms of consultations as well as information provided during negotiations on the
modernised Directive.
3.
SELECTION OF PROFESSIONS FOR THE EPC
3.1.
Conditions for the introduction of the EPC
The EPC is a voluntary instrument available for those professions who express an
interest in benefitting from the advantages the EPC brings. The introduction of the EPC
is, however, subject to all of the following conditions (Article 4a(7) of Directive
2005/36/EC):
“(a) there is significant mobility or potential for significant mobility in the profession
concerned;
(b) there is sufficient interest expressed by the relevant stakeholders;
(c) the profession or the education and training geared to the pursuit of the profession is
regulated in a significant number of Member States.”
As regards the first and last criteria, the Commission’s assessment is mostly based on the
data of the Regulated Professions Database (the Database)5. This database contains
information on regulated professions, statistics on recognition decisions, contact points
and competent authorities, as provided by EU Member States, EEA countries and
Switzerland. Each Member State is responsible for updating information on its regulated
professions, competent authorities and statistics.
The significance of the mobility of a profession concerned has to be interpreted in the
light of the overall mobility figures of the Regulated Professions Database. Furthermore,
it is likely that, as a result of the introduction of the EPC and its simplified administrative
requirements, the mobility figures of certain pre-selected professions would increase in
the future. This potential for mobility has also to be taken into account in the evaluation
of the EPC criteria. The EPC offers potential for both the professions interested mainly in
establishment and those interested mainly in temporary mobility.6
Regarding the second criterion, the analysis took into account the views of national
bodies, EU-level professional organisations and competent authorities that the
Commission received through the consultation process of the EPC.
5
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/qualifications/regprof/
6
COM(2011) 883 final, p. 7.
4
3.2.
Evaluation of the EPC conditions for the 7 pre-selected professions
3.2.1.
Doctors
According to the Database, medical doctors are the most mobile profession in terms of
establishment: 62,470 recognition decisions (of which 59,885 were positive) have been
registered in the Database since 1997. In terms of temporary provision of services, there
were fewer declarations registered in the system, but doctors are amongst the 15 most
mobile professions in this category.
Being one of the “sectoral” professions that benefit from the automatic recognition
regime based on harmonised minimum training requirements under Directive
2005/36/EC7, basic medical doctors and general practitioners are regulated in all Member
States. However, the level of regulation in terms of medical specialisations is somewhat
heterogeneous across the EU.
Medical doctors are represented by three main professional organisations at European
level: the Standing Committee of European Doctors (CPME) represents national medical
associations and basic medical doctors across Europe; the European Union of Medical
Specialists (UEMS) is the representative organisation of the National Associations of
Medical Specialists in the European Union and its associated countries; and the European
Union of General Practitioners (UEMO) is the common voice of general practice, both of
the European Union and of Europe as a whole. However, there are further EU-wide
organisations representing a specific segment of the profession, such as the European
Society of Radiology (ESR).
The three main professional organisations have expressed interest in engaging further in
the introduction of the EPC for the medical profession. However, there are different
levels of engagement amongst the organisations.
The UEMS and the UEMO expressed a clear interest for the EPC. The CPME, while
being positive overall about the EPC, raised some concerns with regard to the operational
aspects and any potential threat to patient safety. The CPME strongly suggested the EPC
be introduced for the medical profession in a second stage after having gained experience
from other professions.
The ESR and the majority of national organisations (14 out of the 18 responding
authorities) expressed their support for the introduction of the EPC for the medical
profession. Some supported the introduction of the EPC only for certain categories of
medical specialists, in particular those which are covered by the automatic recognition
regime.
The competent authorities were also divided concerning support for the introduction of
the EPC for the medical profession. The European Network of Medical Competent
Authorities (ENMCA) raised some concerns, mostly concerning tacit recognition and
perceived patient safety risks. However, some of their members were supportive. The
7
The minimum training requirements for doctors are set out in Articles 24-30 and Annex V, Sections
5.1.1-4 of Directive 2005/36/EC.
5
ENMCA in general asked for the introduction of the EPC for the medical profession in a
subsequent stage.
The 13 national competent authorities who responded to the targeted consultation were
clearly supportive of the introduction of the EPC for the medical profession, while only
three of them were clearly against it. These authorities questioned the added value of the
EPC for doctors and raised concerns on patient safety and on operational aspects. Most of
these concerns were addressed by the proposed EPC workflow, which was extensively
discussed in the Focus Group and the expert meeting with the involvement of the medical
profession. Some competent authorities also stressed the political sensitivity of the
possible introduction of the EPC for the medical profession, in the light of existing
shortages of medical doctors in certain national healthcare systems. Several competent
authorities stressed that it would be advisable to introduce the EPC for the medical
profession only in a second stage and after stakeholders could gain experience with the
functioning of the system. During the initial discussions in the Group of Coordinators 18
national coordinators expressed their views on introducing the EPC for the medical
profession only in a second stage.
3.2.2.
Nurses
According to the Database, nurses (including both general care nurses and specialised
nurses) are the second most mobile profession in cases of establishment: 59,144
recognition decisions (of which 53,786 were positive) have been registered in the
Database since 1997, of which 55,629 recognition decisions were registered for nurses
responsible for general care (50,493 - positive), and only 3,515 decisions for recognition
of specialised nurses training (3,293 - positive)8.In terms of temporary provision of
services, there were only a few declarations registered in the system.9
Second level nurses (e.g. nursing assistants, health care workers) are also very mobile,
ranking in the top 5 of regulated professions in the Database, with 14,370 recognition
decisions in cases of establishment (of which 12,430 were positive), but no declarations
in cases of temporary provision of services.
Most of the respondents to the Commission's targeted consultation considered that the
high level of mobility of nurses is likely to increase (e.g., due to shortages of labour, low
salaries, differences in working conditions or reflecting the “image of nursing”) or at
least should remain stable over the next 5 years.
The profession of a nurse responsible for general care is one of the “sectoral” professions
that benefit from the automatic recognition regime under Directive 2005/36/EC,10 and it
is therefore regulated in all Member States and Switzerland.
8
To date we have not received mobility data on the specialist nurses who are not part of the Database,
such as those where only education and training geared towards the profession is regulated.
9
Only 10 declarations were registered in the Database.
10
The minimum training requirements for nurses responsible for general care are set out in Articles 3133a and Annex V, Section V.5.2 of Directive 2005/36/EC.
6
In addition, based on the Database, 15 of the EU Member States (as well as Switzerland
and Liechtenstein) regulate one or more categories of specialised nurses (such as mental
health
nurse,
learning
disabilities
nurse,
paediatric
nurse,
anaesthesia/reanimation/operating theatre nurse). However, the scope of regulation in
nursing specialisations varies greatly across individual Member States.11
Second level nurses are regulated in 18 Member States under various denominations
(such as assistant nurses or health care workers), which are rather heterogeneous across
EEA countries.12
The European Federation of Nurses’ Associations (EFN, a European organisation
representing the nursing profession) and a number of national associations have
expressed interest in the introduction of the EPC for the nursing profession. In particular,
most of the professional organisations and trade unions that replied to the Commission's
targeted consultation supported the introduction of the EPC for the nursing professions
represented by their organisations.13 The European Specialist Nurses Organisations
(ESNO) took an active part in the Focus Group and expressed an interest in the EPC for
the nursing profession. A few organisations have reserved opinion or suggested that, as a
first step, the EPC should be introduced for nurses responsible for general care. No
specific interest was expressed for the second level nurses in particular.
The majority of public authorities (7) that responded to Commission’s targeted
consultation showed support, and most of them preferred to begin initially with nurses
responsible for general care (6). Others did not have a final view yet (4), or were against
the EPC for nurses (3).
3.2.3.
Pharmacists
According to the Database, pharmacists (including both pharmacists and specialised
pharmacists) are the 11th most mobile profession in cases of establishment: 7,050
recognition decisions (of which 6,835 were positive) have been registered in the
Database since 1997, of which 7,005 recognition decisions (6,790 - positive) were
registered for pharmacists with basic training, and only 45 for specialised pharmacists
11
According to the Database, there is the following number of entries for specialist nurse trainings
(national training requirements) in EU/EEA countries: Austria (10), Greece (5), Netherlands (5),
Ireland (4), Liechtenstein (4), France (3), Luxembourg (3), Malta (3), Finland (2), Denmark (1),
Germany (1), Hungary (1), Italy (1), Slovenia (1), UK (1) and Switzerland (1). Latvia has reported
under the tab “Other health professionals” 10 types of specialised nurses.
12
According to the Database, The Czech Republic reported 3 professions in this category, Germany (2),
Italy (2), Malta (2), Slovakia (2), Austria (1), Belgium (1), Denmark (1), France (1), Greece (1),
Iceland (1), Liechtenstein (1), Luxembourg (1), Netherlands (1), Spain (1), Switzerland (1), United
Kingdom (1).
13
Organisations from SE, DE, LT, DK, IT, PL, AT and European-level organisations ESNO, EAUN.
7
(all positive)14. In terms of the temporary provision of their services, there were only a
few declarations registered in the Database15.
A number of public authorities who responded to the Commission's targeted consultation
considered that the high level of mobility of pharmacists is likely to increase in the near
future (e.g., due to shortages in labour, possibilities for better salaries, other socioeconomic factors) or at least would remain stable (9 out of 18). This view was largely
confirmed by a majority of professional organisations (5 out of 9) who responded to a
relevant question in a consultation. Other public authorities (9 out of 18) as well as
professional organisations (2 out of 9) did not have a clear view on the future trends of
mobility in this profession.
The profession of pharmacists is one of the “sectoral” professions under the Directive
2005/36/EC16 and it is regulated in all EU/EEA Member States.
However, the scope of regulation of specialised pharmacists varies greatly across
Member States. For instance, in the Database only three counties (Netherlands, Portugal
and Slovenia) have reported professions under the tab for specialised pharmacist training.
In addition, based on information provided by professional organisations, a number of
Member States regulate to a certain degree the education and training geared towards
specialised pharmacist professions.17 Based on the information available, the regulation
of training geared towards specialised pharmacy professions varies across EU countries.
The majority of the members of the Pharmaceutical Group of the European Union
(PGEU, an EU-level organization representing pharmacists working in community
pharmacies) support the introduction of the EPC for the pharmacist profession (but
excluding pharmacy specialisations). The European Association of Hospital Pharmacists
(EAHP, an EU-level organization representing hospital pharmacists) has also positively
engaged in the context of the Focus Group and has expressed support for the EPC for
pharmacists represented by this organisation. Most of the professional associations and
other organisations (10 out of 12) that responded to the Commission’s targeted
consultation supported the introduction of the EPC for pharmacists with basic training.
Only three organisations representing specialised pharmacists responded to the
14
15
To date we have not received mobility data on the specialist pharmacists who are not part of the
Database, such as those where only education and training geared towards the profession is regulated.
Only 9 declarations were registered in the Database.
16
The minimum training requirements for pharmacists are set out in Articles 44-45 and Annex V,
Section V.6 of Directive 2005/36/EC.
17
For instance, several countries regulate education geared towards hospital pharmacy or clinical pharmacy
specialisation. Some of these specialisations are also open to graduates in other disciplines, such as
medicine or chemistry.
8
consultation and were supportive18. Only two respondents saw no added value of the
EPC in this profession.19
A significant number of national authorities who responded to a targeted consultation
were supportive (12 out of 21), while a few of them insisted that the EPC is introduced
only for the pharmacists that currently benefit from automatic recognition regime (4). A
few public authorities (4 out of 21)20 also took the position that the EPC for pharmacists
would not be warranted, as it would not bring any major added value to a profession that
is already mobile and not facing any major problems in recognition. Others (4 out of 21)
did not know.
3.2.4.
Physiotherapists
According to the Database, physiotherapists are the fourth most mobile profession in
cases of establishment: 19,885 recognition decisions (of which 16,108 were positive)
have been registered in the Database since 1997. In terms of temporary provision of their
services, there were also a significant number of declarations registered in the system
(478), ranking physiotherapists as the 6th most mobile profession in this category.
Most of the professional organisations (6 out of the 6 organisations which answered this
question) and competent authorities (11 out of the 20 responding authorities) who replied
to the Commission's targeted consultation underlined that the mobility of
physiotherapists is likely to increase in the coming 5 years or at least remain stable.
Others did not know.
The profession of physiotherapist is regulated in 25 EU Member States as well as in
Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland.
The professional organisations that expressed an interest in the introduction of the EPC
include the European Region of World Confederation for Physical Therapy (European
organisation of professional associations of physiotherapists from 37 countries).
Moreover, in the context of the targeted consultation, 8 national professional
organisations responded to the questionnaire, of which 4 gave positive feedback, while 3
did not have clear views at this stage. Only one national professional organisation
questioned whether the EPC would be suitable for the profession due to potential patient
safety concerns resulting from the tacit recognition under the EPC procedure. One other
association considered EPC is not necessary.
Almost 20 national authorities answered the Commission's targeted consultation
concerning physiotherapists. The majority of them appear to be supportive for the
introduction of the EPC for physiotherapists, while some authorities did not have a final
position. Only a few of them raised concerns and preferred to start the implementation of
the EPC first with the sectoral health professions.
18
19
20
EHPA – for hospital pharmacist, ES – various specialisations, SE - dispensers
UK organisation representing community pharmacy owners and Verband Angestellter Apotheker
Österreichs (Austria).
AT, EE, NL and UK.
9
3.2.5.
Mountain guides
According to the Regulated Professions Database, the profession of mountain guide is
regulated in 7 EU Member States (and in Switzerland). However, according to the
information available to the Commission, this profession in some Member States is
regulated as part of other professions (e.g. tour guides or sports instructors). Accordingly,
the overall number of Member States regulating the profession in some way is likely to
be higher.
Mountain guides are represented by national professional organisations which are
federated at EU level in the International Federation of Mountain Guide Association
(IFMGA) representing around 5000 mountain guides from 11 EU Member States as well
as the Union of International Mountain Leader Associations (UIMLA). The IFMGA sets
common training standards for its members and they are assessed by those same
standards. The IFMGA also issues for its members a “Mountain Guide Card” proving
IFMGA membership, attendance of compulsory professional development education, and
the possession of professional liability insurance. The "UIMLA International Mountain
Leader" qualification and the IFMGA "Mountain Guide" qualification are internationally
recognized in the mountains world-wide.
Mountain guides, due to the nature of their activities, are a highly mobile profession
using the permanent establishment regime under the Professional Qualifications
Directive or providing temporary and occasional services abroad. Nevertheless, the
number of recognition decisions taken by Member States in the past or declarations
received for the temporary provision of services is more limited in the Regulated
Professions Database21. This is due, according to the IFMGA, to difficulties mountain
guides have experienced in the application of the relevant procedures to obtain
recognition of their qualifications or to introduce a prior declaration. As mountain guides
often have to cross borders and provide services in another Member State at very short
notice, given the changing weather conditions, so their potential for mobility is highly
significant.
Mountain guides have expressed, via the IFMGA and UIMLA, a strong interest in the
EPC which is seen as a measure to enhance professional mobility, in particular for
temporary provision of services where the profession has a great potential for mobility.
The two organisations also consider the EPC a tool for simplifying the control and
identification of mountain guides, as well as a means of better protection for clients. The
IFMGA estimates that approximately 3500 EU mountain guides would apply for the EPC
for temporary provision of services while 750 could seek establishment via this
mechanism.
Competent authorities had limited views on the introduction of the EPC for mountain
guides. A few concerns were raised by Member States' authorities where the profession is
not regulated. Competent authorities from 4 countries and Switzerland responded to the
targeted consultation; they were all either in favour or with no opinion.
21
19 establishment decisions and 11 prior declarations were registered in the Regulated Professions
Database.
10
3.2.1.
Real estate agents
According to the Regulated Professions Database, real estate agents (including real estate
agency managers) are regulated in 15 Member States22, as well as in Iceland, Norway
and Switzerland. Some Member States (e.g. Belgium, Austria, France, Luxembourg,
Slovenia, and Hungary) regulate several different professions in this field. On the basis of
a report on the practice and regulation of the real estate professions23 all the reported
countries24 regulated education and training geared to the pursuit of the real estate
professions.
Although it is difficult to substantiate the level of mobility of the real estate profession
(as it is not regulated in all Member States), the data registered in the Regulated
Professions Database shows that there is significant mobility in the profession especially
in terms of cross border services25. The results of the targeted consultation show a
potential for further increases in the mobility of real estate professionals based on the
increasing need for provision of cross-border services provided for migrating EU citizens
as well as economic recovery. This cross-border services provision is a particular factor
in areas bordering national frontiers, big cities or holiday destinations, where agents may
be involved in transactions on a one off or a regular basis involving properties located on
the territory of different Member States.
The European Council of Real Estate Professions (CEPI), which represents over 200,000
real estate professionals across Europe, expressed a clear interest in the introduction of
the EPC for the real estate profession. The CEPI found that there would be an added
value of the EPC for real estate professionals and that the introduction of the EPC would
facilitate and further enhance the mobility of the profession.
Around 26 professional associations of real estate agents from 18 EU countries and
Norway replied to the Commission's targeted consultation concerning real estate agents.
A vast majority of them appear to be supportive of the introduction of the EPC for this
profession, while two of them did not have a final position. Only one professional
association from one EU country raised concerns, invoking the specificity of the tasks of
their real estate agents.
Competent authorities had different views on the EPC, most of these concerns were
raised by Member States' authorities where the real estate profession is not regulated.
22
Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Hungary, Austria,
Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden.
23
The real estate professions and national housing markets in the European Union, CEPI, 22/10/2013
(transparency register number: 1094652600-90)
24
14 Member States (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Spain, Ireland, France,
Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom) clarified that at present, there is no
comprehensive training scheme in the estate agency business to make it easier to enter the profession.
No specific training or previous experience of the industry is required to sit the examination.
25
For temporary provisions of services the real estate professions are the 40th most mobile professions in
the ranking. For establishment cases, Member States registered 465 national decisions since 1997.
11
3.2.2.
Engineers
According to the Regulated Professions Database, there are 50 different specialisations
using the “engineer” denomination. Engineers, civil engineers and building engineers are
in the top 50 of the most mobile professions with around 6500 recognition decisions
taken since 1997, while the other engineering specialisations are also highly mobile. The
education and training for different specialisations may differ significantly, in terms of
type (vocational/university), duration (Bachelor/Master) and content of the training.
Accordingly, recognition under the general system supposes the imposition in many
cases of compensation measures (an aptitude test as well as adaptation periods are
frequently used).
The ways in which Member States regulate these specialisations are also different,
ranging from no regulation to regulation of the education and training, the protection of
the title or licensing. An identical engineering specialisation is usually regulated in fewer
than 10 Member States (civil engineers are regulated in 2226 Member States).
The mobility of engineers is supported by the creation of the EUR ING title by FEANI
(European Federation of National Engineering Associations), which guarantees the
competence of the professional, and by the Engineering Card developed by the same
organisation.
Engineers are represented by national professional organisations and chambers. These
organisations are federated at EU level principally by FEANI and the European Council
of Engineers Chambers. Both of these organisations, as well as the European Higher
Engineering and Technical Professionals Association and various professional
organisations at national level, expressed an interest in the introduction of the EPC. 38
professional associations representing engineers at European and national level
responded to the targeted consultation. They represented on the whole 17 EU countries.
9 of them were against the introduction of the EPC, as they found that the EPC could
bring a potential fragmentation of the profession and add additional barriers regarding the
movement of the professionals between the different specialisations. Some of them were
interested in the EPC concept but feared that the process would be too bureaucratic. 5
Associations had no opinion. However, the remaining 24 expressed interest in the EPC.
Of the 19 competent authorities, representing 9 EU countries, which replied to the
targeted consultation, a large majority (14) expressed an interest for the EPC while 5
expressed their opposition or did not have any views. The arguments reflected those
expressed by professional organisations
In this regard, participants in the Focus Group agreed that if the EPC is introduced for the
engineering profession, it should cover all specialisations. Stakeholders, especially the
competent authorities, highlighted the difficulties they would face when acting as a home
Member State in a country where the profession is not regulated. Finally, stakeholders
enquired about the added value of the EPC for engineers as their qualifications have to be
evaluated systematically under the general system and the support the home Member
State can provide in this procedure was seen as being rather limited. It was also stated
26
Based on the information provided by Member States in the context of the mutual evaluation of
regulated professions.
12
that the EPC would be unlikely to increase mobility as it would play only a marginal role
in employment decisions for this profession.
3.3.
The Commission's proposal
According to the initial analysis of the conditions of Article 4a(7) of Directive
2005/36/EC regarding the 7 pre-selected professions, at the first stage the EPC could
focus on the following professions:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
nurses responsible for general care,
pharmacists,
physiotherapists,
mountain guides, and
real estate agents.
These professions appear to meet all the requirements for the introduction of the EPC as
regards their current or potential mobility figures, their regulation as well as strong
interest expressed by the professions. Furthermore, the chosen general system
professions are sufficiently homogenous to be good candidates for the first phase of
implementation. Finally, the concerns raised by stakeholders could be addressed by the
proposed EPC workflow and technical solutions.
For doctors (including specialists and general practitioners), engineers, specialised nurses
and specialised pharmacists, the EPC could be introduced at a subsequent stage, after
having gained some experience with the functioning of the system. The introduction of
the EPC for these professions needs further assessment in relation to their compliance
with the conditions laid down in Article 4a(7) of Directive 2005/36/EC.
4.
THE IMPACTS OF THE INTRODUCTION OF THE EPC
Initial analysis of the impacts on Member States have been carried out in the
Commission Staff Working Document “Impact Assessment” of 19.12.2011
accompanying the proposal on the Modernisation of Directive 2005/36/EC27.
The impact assessment of December 2011 emphasized, among other things, problems
related to accessing online procedures and the efficiency of recognition procedures.
In particular, professionals seeking the recognition of their qualifications experienced
major difficulties in identifying the right competent authority, the applicable procedure
and the documents they needed to submit, the limited use of electronic means for
completing recognition procedures and the lengthy recognition procedures (e.g. due to
the non-respect of deadlines by competent authorities).
The responses from professional associations and other organisations to the
Commission's targeted consultation also suggest that knowledge of foreign languages,
difficulties in finding the relevant information, identifying the relevant competent
authorities, followed by a need to provide translations and certified copies of application
documents constitute important obstacles to recognition.
27
SEC(2011) 1558 final, Brussels, 19.12.2011
13
To address these concerns, various options were considered in the context of the
modernisation of Directive 2005/36/EC, but the creation of an EPC, based on a stronger
involvement of the home Member State, was the preferred option, since this solution
would create favourable conditions for facilitating and accelerating recognition
procedures.
It was considered that although this option implies a certain shift in costs and
administrative burdens from the host to home Member State, the compulsory use of IMI
serving as a back office for the EPC procedure should reduce any potential costs and the
time needed for the treatment of applications. The EPC would allow professionals to
benefit from quicker recognition procedures and would bring more transparency to these.
Although the EPC would require investments from the Commission (IT developments on
IMI), and it would imply certain additional efforts from some Member States (e.g., the
registration and training of new authorities), it was concluded that the EPC would still
lead to a reduction in time needed for the recognition procedures, with positive impacts
on the administrative costs across all Member States. This would be the case especially if
the EPC were voluntary, aimed at only the most mobile amongst the interested
professions, and extended progressively to other interested professions only once it has
proven to be effective.28
The following sections develop the analysis contained in the “Impact Assessment” of
19.12.2011, updating it in view of the further evidence collected since its publication.
4.1.
Impact on home Member State
The EPC procedure would require more involvement from the home Member State
competent authority. In particular, in cases of establishment, the home Member State
competent authorities would have certain additional responsibilities compared to the
current situation: on request from a professional, the home Member State would assess
the completeness of the EPC request, verify the validity and authenticity of application
documents, issue any required certificates (if appropriate), transmit the file to the host
Member State competent authority, inform the applicant of progress via IMI, and (upon
request) provide any necessary clarifications to the host Member State competent
authority. The role of the home Member State will be even more important in cases of
temporary mobility without prior checking of qualifications, as the home Member State
competent authority would also decide on the outcome of the EPC procedure.
This change in responsibilities between home and host Member State authorities implies
the transfer of certain administrative burdens from the host to the home Member State.
However, any potential increase in costs for home Member State authorities is likely to
be limited, as this new procedure can be carried out by the competent authorities which
are currently in place and which are frequently involved in the preparation of the
recognition file of professionals (e.g. issuing supporting certificates to the professionals
on paper, posting those and following up on them in case of queries from the host
Member State) .Thus the use of IMI and the standardisation of application document
requirements should further reduce the administrative burden.
28
COM(2011) 883 final, p. 7.
14
The results of the Commission’s targeted consultation clearly indicate that the home
Member States are already frequently asked by outgoing professionals to issue
certificates supporting their application for recognition in another Member State (e.g.
certificate of conformity, certifications on acquired rights, certificates on professional
experience under Article 13(2) of the Directive, even if the profession is not regulated in
the country of origin). These certificates are currently mostly issued as paper copies and
sent by post to the professionals and in many cases to the host Member States as well.
Moreover, the home Member States are often then asked by the host competent
authorities to confirm the authenticity of these certificates. Therefore the workload for
the home Member States competent authority, under the EPC procedure, should be
analysed in this context.
The EPC procedure will also exploit the benefits of the already successful IMI system.
The functioning of the EPC will be contingent upon the systematic use of IMI, which
would become compulsory for competent authorities and serve as the back office for the
EPC. The structured workflow in IMI will contribute to a reduction in cost and time
necessary for the treatment of a recognition request by the home Member States
competent authorities.
IMI will rationalise and facilitate the workload of home competent authorities, replacing
conventional paper work by the use of electronic procedures. For instance, in cases where
the home Member State competent authority is requested to issue any supporting
certificates, the IMI system would provide a functionality to upload certificates directly
into the IMI file and to confirm that that certificate is valid and authentic (thereby
removing the need to issue paper documents and certified copies to the applicant as well
as the need for sending them by post). In cases where certain documents are issued by
other authorities in the same Member State or by authorities in other Member States, the
system will provide a possibility to contact relevant bodies via IMI. All the data stored in
the professional's IMI file would be transferred via IMI to the host Member State
authorities for further examination. The IMI files would be reusable and would
substantially ease the workload of the home Member States competent authorities in the
case of any subsequent applications by the same applicant.
All in all, the use of a standardised IMI workflow would rationalise the exchange of
information between the home and host Member State competent authorities and in the
medium to long term would further enhance mutual trust between authorities.
In addition, the streamlining of the document and information requirements for EPC
applications would ease the process of checking the completeness of the file by the home
Member State competent authorities (who would otherwise not be aware of the document
requirements in every country of destination). The authorities in the home Member State
would be able to check completeness of the file based on the maximum list of documents
and information requirements set out in the implementing act. Furthermore, Member
States will have to share information about any country specific document requirements
via IMI. This would not only ease the work of the home Member State competent
authorities, but would also make the procedure more transparent to all parties involved.
The implementing act would provide clear guidance to the home Member State
competent authorities on cases where certified copies and/or translations of documents
could be requested from the applicant. Any country specific document requirements,
such as certifications of documents or languages for translations acceptable by the host
15
Member State competent authority, would be readily visible to the home competent
authorities dealing with the EPC application in IMI.
The European Commission’s cost collection exercise carried out in 2012 for the medical
profession with the involvement of Poland and the Netherlands in the context of the
Council Working Parties on the Commission’s proposal has also confirmed that any
possible administrative cost increase for the home Member State competent authorities
would be limited29. The results of the Commission’s separate data request of 11 April
2014 revealed that at this stage (before the EPC procedure has been put in place and
experience of it gained) it is difficult to have a precise estimate of the impact on
administrative costs. In spite of this, a majority of respondents to the data collection
exercise did not expect any major impact on the administrative costs of the home MS
competent authorities (see Table 1 in the Annex).30 Although several authorities
identified the risks regarding possible increases in costs; these concerns could be (to a
large extent) mitigated by the solutions proposed in the EPC procedure (as shown in
Table 2 in the Annex).
4.2.
Impact on host Member State
The introduction of the EPC would considerably ease the administrative burden of the
host Member State competent authorities, because of the transfer of certain tasks to the
home Member State and the use of IMI.
Although the host Member State competent authorities retain the right to take ultimate
decisions on the issuance of the EPC31 (except in cases of temporary provision of
services without prior check of qualifications), they would be involved in the EPC
procedure only after the transfer of the IMI file to them by the home Member State
competent authorities. It is the latter who will carry out the initial verification of
applications (i.e., assess the completeness of the EPC request, verify the validity and
authenticity of application documents), which under current procedures is done by the
host Member State. In cases of justified doubts, the home Member State competent
authorities will also provide any additional clarification to the host Member State
authorities via IMI. Therefore, in the EPC workflow, the competent authorities of the
host Member State will be involved in the actual examination of the professional file in
IMI containing all relevant documents, verified by the home Member State competent
authority (although the timing and workload will differ depending on the applicable
regime, be it automatic recognition or recognition under the general system).
In the case of temporary provision of services (without prior check of qualifications) the
home Member State competent authority will carry out all the necessary work: verify the
29
For instance, in case of the Netherlands, it was mainly linked to the need to manually check the
uploaded information in IMI with the information in the national register.
30
The data provided by 18 respondents show that no major change is expected, 8 expected increased
costs for the home Member State authorities, 9 respondents could not estimate any figures, and 3
respondents estimated a decrease in home Member State authorities’ administrative costs (e.g. due to
automatic generation of various procedural steps).
31
I.e., positive decision, negative decision or decisions on compensation measures.
16
EPC application together with the supporting documents, issue the EPC for temporary
provision of services, transfer it via IMI to the competent authority of each Member State
concerned for information, and deal with any requests for extensions (after the initial 18
months) and/or updates of the IMI file.
The mandatory use of the IMI workflow would also rationalise and facilitate the
workload of the competent authorities in the host Member State by replacing
conventional paper work through the use of electronic procedures. The IMI file, once
transferred to the host Member State authority, would already contain all the documents
and information (in an electronic form) that are necessary to take a decision on the
issuance of the EPC to the applicant. As noted above, the application file would be based
on the maximum list of document and information requirements set out in the
implementing act (including rules on the need for translations and certified copies). The
possibility of making direct confirmations of validity and authenticity of documents in
IMI by the home Member State competent authority would greatly diminish the need for
host Member State authorities to request paper certifications and translations from the
applicants. 32
The European Commission’s cost collection exercise carried out in 2012 for the medical
profession with the involvement of Poland and the Netherlands in the context of the
Council Working Parties has demonstrated that there were potential cost savings for the
authority acting as a host Member State authority.33 These findings also acknowledged
that, although there will be a learning phase for competent authorities, in which the
introduction of the EPC may affect costs, in the longer term, the exact amount of cost
savings would depend on the mutual trust between the competent authorities involved
(i.e., avoiding a behaviour of “checking” documentation twice and duplication of tasks
carried out by the home Member State). The use of a standardised IMI workflow for the
EPC will rationalise the exchange of information between the authorities and, in the
medium to long term, should enhance such mutual trust.
As already noted, results from the Commission’s separate data request of 11 April 2014
revealed that at this stage (before the EPC procedure has been put in place and
experience of it gained) it is difficult to have a precise estimate of any impact on
administrative costs. In spite of this, a vast majority of respondents to the data collection
exercise expect the impact on the administrative costs of the host Member State
competent authorities to be either positive or neutral (see Table 1 in the Annex).34
32
That said, the system would be flexible enough to accommodate any complex situations: e.g., in the
case of duly justified doubts, host Member State competent authorities would be able to request
additional information or inclusion of a certified copy via IMI from the home competent authority or
from the applicant.
33
E.g. in the case of the Netherlands, expected cost reduction was due to a number of cases of automatic
recognition and also due to the fact that the use of the EPC would eliminate the complexity of
checking applications for recognition with accompanying certificates, thereby significantly reducing
the time spent by competent authorities on verification (since all the documents would already be
uploaded in IMI and would have been checked by the home Member State).
34
The data provided by 17 respondents show that no major change is expected, 1 expected increased of
cost for the host Member State authorities, 10 respondents could not estimate any figures, and 11
respondents estimated a decrease in host Member State authorities’ administrative costs (e.g. due to
17
Although a few competent authorities (2) identified certain risks regarding possible
increases in costs for the host Member State; these concerns would be (to a large extent)
mitigated by the solutions proposed in the EPC procedure (as shown in Table 2 in the
Annex).
4.3.
Impact on professionals
The introduction of the EPC is unlikely to have any negative effect on professionals, as it
would primarily be a voluntary procedure and would coexist with currently available
administrative practices. Therefore, the professional will always be able to choose
between the EPC and the "traditional" route for recognition of professional qualifications
(or, in certain cases, establishment) or for making a prior declaration for provision of
temporary services. Furthermore, the introduction of EPC for the professions concerned
is likely to bring significant benefits.
In cases where professionals wish to establish themselves permanently in another
Member State and in cases where applicants in professions with health and safety
implications (except those covered by automatic recognition) wish to provide services on
a temporary basis, the host Member State will take the final decision on issuing the EPC.
However, if it fails to do so within the deadlines set in the Directive, the EPC will be
issued automatically and the professional qualifications will be tacitly recognized.35
In the case of temporary and occasional provision of services for professions which do
not have public health or safety implications, the EPC will be issued by the home
Member State and will replace the prior declaration, which might be required by the host
Member State under Article 7 of Directive 2005/36/EC. In this case, the EPC will cover
the provision of services for a maximum of 18 months (compared to one year under the
current rules) and will be valid on the entire territory of the Member States for which it
has been requested. The professional will be able to request an EPC for one or several
Member States (compared to making declaration to each host Member State under
current rules). In the case of temporary and occasional provision of services for
professions which have public health or safety implications, the EPC will be issued by
the host Member State, following the procedure provided by in Article 4d of Directive
2005/36/EC.
The documents required to apply for the EPC would be simplified. In particular, the
applicant will no longer be obliged to submit the documents that have been issued (or
shall be issued) by the home Member State competent authority. As a general rule the
authenticity and validity of these documents would be confirmed by the home Member
State competent authority directly in IMI thereby eliminating the need for certified
automatic generation in IMI of various procedural steps and more involvement of home MS
authorities).
35
However, an EPC that is issued on the basis of tacit recognition or following the decision of the
competent authorities on the recognition of professional qualifications will not always give immediate
access to the employment market in the host Member State. The effects of the tacit recognition on the
other hand would be equal to the effects of a "traditional" recognition decision. In both cases, the
professional may still be required to comply with other existing registration obligations (e.g.
registration with the competent authority or the chamber) and, in certain cases, a check of his
knowledge of languages.
18
copies. Similarly, as a general rule, the home Member State competent authority would
not have to ask the applicant for translations of a number of documents (such as proof of
nationality, evidence of formal qualifications in the case of automatic recognition, or any
certificates or attestations issued by the home Member State authorities), except in cases
of duly justified doubts, when the host Member State authorities would be able to request
for translations.
The EPC will be designed to facilitate procedures and reduce administrative burdens for
professionals in numerous ways, e.g.:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
36
Simplified and transparent document requirements to submit EPC application
(see also Section.4.1 above)
The length and cost of the recognition procedure will be more transparent.36
The request for the EPC will be made online, thus reducing travel/postal expenses
The home Member State will verify the application documents and confirm their
authenticity and validity for the host Member State, with less need for translations
and certified copies
The home Member State will be able to issue the required certificates during the
application procedure
No need for a professional to search for the competent authority in the home of
the host Member State (the EPC applications will be routed to the authorities
designated by the Member States)
The home Member State communicates with the host Member State through IMI
(less burden on the professional)
In case of temporary mobility (except for the professions with public health or
safety implications), the outcome of the EPC procedure will be issued by the
home Member State and will be valid in all Member States concerned
More use of electronic documents; information saved in the IMI file will be reusable for subsequent applications
Possibility to download any evidence related to the outcome of the EPC
procedure via public interface, which will also provide any information on the
progress of applications, including payments to be made and rights as a data
subject, and to request rectification, deletion or blocking of personal data
contained in the IMI file
Fewer delays through tacit recognition of qualifications
Enhanced security of personal data via the use of IMI
Possibility (may be introduced for selected professions) of enabling
employers/authorities and consumers to check the validity of the EPC online
Pursuant to Recital 6 of Directive 2013/55/EU, Member States will be required to report to the
Commission the level of fees applicable to EPC procedures. The Commission and Member States will
ensure that this information is available to the applicants (e.g., via the EPC dedicated website, national
portals, Points of Single Contacts).
19
5.
DATA PROTECTION ANALYSIS
The alert mechanism and the EPC, both to be supported by the IMI system, involve the
processing of personal data. Directive 2013/55/EU already sets out clear and precise rules
to ensure the appropriate protection of personal data processed in the context of the EPC
and the alert mechanism, taking into account comments received from the European Data
Protection Supervisor during the preparation and adoption of the text.
The provisions of the implementing act(s) proposed will therefore focus on the technical
implementation of these rules.
5.1.
General data protection analysis concerning IMI
Member States will use IMI for the implementation of the EPC and the alert mechanism.
IMI is a software application accessible via the Internet, developed and hosted by the
European Commission. The objective of IMI is to improve the functioning of the Single
Market by facilitating administrative cooperation and mutual assistance between Member
States. It does so by providing a reliable tool for the secure exchange of information
(including certain personal data) between national administrations of the EEA Member
States. IMI is used for administrative cooperation in areas listed in the Annex to the IMI
Regulation.37
IMI has been developed with the requirements of data protection legislation in mind and
offers a high level of data protection and security. It operates on the basis of Regulation
(EU) No 1024/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 October 2012 on
administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System and repealing
Commission Decision 2008/49/EC (the IMI Regulation). The IMI Regulation sets out
detailed rules applicable to the processing of personal data in the system, in accordance
with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Directive 95/46/EC38, dealing, in particular, with:
access rights, purpose limitation, confidential treatment, retention periods and the
processing of special categories of data and security.
Moreover, as provided for in Article 21 (4) of the IMI Regulation, the system is under
"coordinated supervision" by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS). So far,
no areas of concern have been raised39.
The technical modules to be developed in IMI to support the EPC and the alert
mechanism will be based on the privacy-by-design principle to implement the legal
requirements laid down in the Directive.
37
The consolidated version of the Annex to the IMI Regulation is accessible here: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?qid=1403275344970&uri=CELEX:02012R1024-20140117
It includes in point 2 a reference to Articles 4a to 4e (EPC) and 56a (Alert mechanism) introduced by Directive
2013/55/EU.
38
More information can also be found in the specific "data protection" section of our website, available here:
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/imi-net/data_protection/index_en.htm
39
https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/EDPS/PressNews/News/14-0521_IMI_Supervision_Coordination_Group_EN.pdf
20
5.2.
Data protection analysis concerning EPC
Directive 2013/55/EU provides precise rules for the processing of personal data (access
rights, retention periods, data subjects’ rights, content of the processed data, etc.) that
will be technically mirrored in the EPC module of the IMI system.
Professionals in the selected profession categories will be able to choose whether to use
the EPC procedure to obtain recognition of their qualifications in another Member State
or whether to use a “traditional” route for recognition.
Applications for the EPC will be submitted through a web based interface for
professionals (“professional's interface”) that will provide information on the purpose,
scope and nature of the data processing and request the consent of the person concerned
regarding the processing of his personal data.
In order to ensure personal data protection and security, the professional's interface40 will
also:
- inform professionals about their right to access their data and to request rectification of
inaccurate or incomplete data, the change of data or the deletion or blocking of an IMI
file. Requests to exercise this right can be sent directly via the web based interface;
- remind professionals about these rights by the means of automatic email notifications
sent to the professional and generated by the system each time an EPC is issued and
every two years thereafter ;
- inform professionals about any updates in their IMI file including those related to
disciplinary actions or criminal sanctions.
For the purpose of verifying and assessing EPC applications, access to the IMI file will
be limited to the home and host Member State competent authorities responsible for
dealing with individual applications.
The Commission may provide an online tool for interested parties to check the validity
and authenticity of an issued EPC online. This will allow third parties to retrieve limited
information related to the EPC contained in the IMI system (whether the EPC exists and
is valid). It would, however, not allow third parties to access the IMI system or any other
data contained in the IMI file nor the list of all authentic and valid EPCs. The information
provided will be limited to a message about the validity and authenticity of an individual
EPC. In the case of substantial updates in the IMI file related to the right to pursue a
profession, the system will display a neutral message suggesting contact be made with
the relevant host Member State competent authority for more information.
5.3.
Data protection analysis concerning the alert mechanism
The alert mechanism, as provided by Article 56a of Directive 2005/36/EC, will also be
supported by the IMI system, therefore the data protection safeguards provided for in the
IMI Regulation will also be applicable to this mechanism. Additionally, Directive
40
The professional's interface is relevant only for online applications.
21
2005/36/EC provides further safeguards concerning the content of the alerts, the
processing of personal data and the right of the data subject to ask for the rectification of
a wrongly sent alert. It is important to clarify that the scope of the alert mechanism will
not be limited to professionals who obtained an EPC previously.
Competent authorities entitled to send alerts for a specific profession will be designated
by Member States. For the dissemination of incoming alerts within a Member State and
allocation of the alert to the right competent authority on the basis of the need to know
principle, it is proposed to enable one or more national competent authorities to fulfil a
coordinating role within each Member State. This would enable Member States to control
which authorities have access to the content of alerts. They will be able to avoid
unnecessary receipt of alerts by non-relevant competent authorities or the dissemination
of alerts which do not concern any authority in their country. Only those users of the IMI
System who are granted the relevant user rights would be able to access alerts. The users
who are authorised to use the alert module would only be able to access those alerts in
which they are directly involved. They would not be able to search for or retrieve
information from any other alert.
Concerning the withdrawal of an alert, the authority that initiated it would be able to do
so in justified cases. All other authorities involved would be informed of the withdrawal
accordingly. The proposed solution would clearly distinguish cases concerning
withdrawal and closure of alerts. In case of a withdrawn alert, the content would be
automatically deleted within 3 days.
The content of alerts will be accessible to relevant competent authorities until the alert is
closed by the initiating authority. Alerts can be closed at the end of the restriction period
or earlier if appropriate. The closure of the alert would not require any justification. All
other authorities involved would be automatically informed about the closure of an alert
and the content of the alert will be automatically deleted 3 days after closure.
A review of the validity of open alerts will be triggered by regular reminders to the
initiator of alerts. These reminders would invite the initiators to review their alerts and to
close them if they are no longer valid. This safeguard would be in line with the
requirements of Article 56a(7) of the Directive and would ensure that alerts are only kept
in IMI for as long as they are valid.
22
Table 1. Summary of Commission’s separate data collection request to competent
authorities of 11.4.2014
Country of the
competent
authority
Profession
concerened
Impact on HOME MS
competent authority
(establishment cases)*
Impact on HOST MS
competent authority
(establishment
cases)**
Overall cost impact
AT
doctor
increase
no change
increase
DE regional
doctor
no change
decrease
decrease
DE regional
doctor
no data
no data
no data
DK
doctor
no change
no change
no change
HU
doctor
increase
decrease
increase
LT
doctor
decrease
no data
decrease***
UK
doctor
no data
no data
no data
DE
engineer
no data
no data
no data
FR
engineer
increase
increase
increase
IE
engineer
no data
decrease
no data
LT
engineer
no change
no change
no change
PT
engineer
increase
decrease
increase
no data
no data
DK
engineer-land suno data
BE
estate agent
no change
no change
no change
DK
estate agent
no change
no change
no change
LT
estate agent
no data
no change
no data
SE
estate agent
no change
no data
no change***
LT
mountain guide no data
no change
decrease***
AT
nurse
no change
no change
no change
DE regional
nurse
no change
decrease
decrease
DK
nurse
no change
no change
no change
HU
nurse
increase
decrease
increase
LT
nurse
decrease
no data
decrease***
UK
nurse
no data
no data
no data
AT
pharmacist
no change
no change
no change
DE regional
pharmacist
no change
decrease
decrease
HU
pharmacist
increase
decrease
increase
IE
pharmacist
increase
decrease
decrease
LT
pharmacist
no change
no change
no change
UK
pharmacist
no data
no data
increase***
UK
pharmacist
no data
no data
no data
AT
physiotherapist no change
no change
no change
CONFIDENTIAL physiotherapist no change
no change
no change
DE regional
physiotherapist no change
decrease
decrease
DK
physiotherapist no change
no change
no change
HU
physiotherapist increase
no change
increase
IE
physiotherapist no change
decrease
decrease
LT
physiotherapist decrease
no change
decrease
PT
physiotherapist no change
no change
no change
no change
18
17
13
decrease
3
11
10
increase
8
1
8
no data
10
10
8
* based on cost estimates per application for recognition x the number of application for certificates issued
by home MS to outgoing professionals (2013)
** based on cost estimates per application for recognition x the number of application for recognition in host
MS from incomming professionals (2013)
*** no data was provided, but the view on impact on costs was expressed in writing
23
Table 2. Summary of concerns regarding possible impact of EPC on Member
States’ administrative costs
Concerns identified
by Member States’
competent
authorities
Solutions and mitigating factors proposed by the EPC
procedure
EPC procedure may
increase
power
consumption and IT
costs
Although greater use of electronic means implies a certain
increase of power consumption or IT costs, please note that in
the case of the online EPC procedure (i.e., the vast majority of
cases), there would no longer be a need to use any paper
documentation and physical delivery of documents.
Based on the Commission’s data collection, the major cost
category concerns costs of personnel (pay for treatment of
application), but not the use of equipment or IT costs. The use
of IMI is likely to rationalise the process and contribute to a
reduction in the time needed for the treatment of a recognition
request.
Home Member State
authorities will have
to gain in-depth
knowledge
of
foreign recognition
models
(which
implies more costs)
In the case of establishment (and also temporary mobility with
prior check of qualifications) the role of the home Member
State competent authority will be limited to actions preceding
the transfer of the IMI file to the host Member State authority,
i.e., it will be limited to verification of completeness of the
application file, verification of the validity and authenticity of
application documents, issuance of required certificates,
answering questions from the host competent authority.
Document requirements and the necessary guidance to the
home Member State competent authorities will be set out in the
implementing act. Furthermore, the Member States will have to
share any country specific information about document
requirements in IMI. This will ease the work of the home
Member State authorities and will make the procedure more
transparent to all parties involved.
In addition, information about the EPC procedure and
document requirements will be available in the EPC dedicated
website and national portals.
A need for the home
Member
State
authority to know
the
responsible
competent
authorities in the
host Member State
The system will allow the home Member State authority to
search easily for the competent authority or authorities
designated by the host Member State to handle EPC
applications for a given profession. In case of unclear
competences, an authority in the host Member State assigned
with a coordinating task will transfer the EPC application to the
right competent authority.
In case of requests for additional information, it will be for the
24
host Member State authority to contact the competent authority
in the home Member State through the IMI system.
Additional tasks for
the home Member
State imply more
administrative costs
In the case of establishment (and also temporary mobility with
prior check of qualifications) the role of the home Member
State competent authority will be limited (see Section 4.1 of
this Staff Working Document).
As noted, competent authorities are already frequently involved
in the preparation of the recognition file of national
professionals, including issuance of certificates. The use of IMI
would rationalise and facilitate the tasks of the home Member
State authority (e.g., the IMI system would provide a
functionality to upload any certificates directly into the IMI file
and to confirm that that certificate is valid and authentic,
thereby removing any need to issue paper documents and
certified copies to the applicant and the need for sending them
by post. Rules on the document and information requirements
to apply for the EPC will bring more transparency to the
process and ease the tasks of the home Member State
competent authorities.
Increased inquiries
from
the
host
Member
State
authorities
imply
additional time and
costs,
especially
given that there is no
possibility for the
host Member State
to
contact
the
applicant directly
The host Member State competent authority would not be
prevented from contacting the applicant directly (e.g., if the
requested information cannot be provided by the home Member
State competent authority).
The host Member
State
competent
authority
would
have to issue the
EPC (that is, in
addition
to
the
recognition decision
pursuant to current
rules) and to justify
the
reasons
for
refusal to issue an
EPC,
including
rights of appeal.
In the case of online applications, the outcome of the EPC
procedure would be issued directly by the IMI system to the
applicant via public interface.
The use of IMI should enhance mutual trust between authorities
and gradually reduce the need for more inquiries. For instance,
the home Member State competent authorities would not only
certify in the IMI system that application documents are valid
and authentic, but would also specify on which basis the
judgement was made and would be able to upload any
supporting evidence to this effect.
As under the current procedures, the host Member State
competent authority would have to take a decision on the
recognition (positive, negative, or decision on compensation
measures). The IMI system will facilitate this task by providing
a structured form for information to be set out in the decisions
on the EPC.
As regards justifications for a refusal decision, the EPC
procedure does not introduce any new obligations on Member
States. Article 51 of the Directive already requires that the
recognition procedures lead to duly substantiated decisions.
25
In some countries,
the EPC procedure
will
require
separation
of
recognition
and
registration
processes. Therefore
there will be a need
to train staff in the
use of IMI, employ
more staff, and to
amend IT systems.
Although the EPC may require initial efforts by some Member
States, in the medium to long term the EPC would still lead to a
reduction in the time needed for a decision, with a positive
impact on administrative costs.
In the case of
temporary provision
of services, the
home Member State
competent authority
has
the
sole
responsibility,
including to inform
the applicant about
the
documents
required and issue
the
required
certificates
The role of the home Member State competent authority in the
case of temporary provision of services (without prior check of
qualifications) will be limited to a completeness check of the
document and information requirements for making a prior
declaration as set out in the implementing act and the
verification of authenticity and validity of certain documents.
For
the
health
professions,
there
are patient safety
concerns due to a
transfer of tasks for
checking
the
documents to the
home Member State
competent authority;
and due to the fact
that no role is
foreseen for the host
Member
State
authority in the case
of prior declaration
for
temporary
provision of services
without prior check
of qualifications.
The implementing act will not affect the division of roles
between the home and the host Member State competent
authorities, as has already been set out in the revised Directive.
The costs of IMI development and initial training of Member
States representatives will be covered by the Commission.
The use of IMI and information sharing by the Member States
on the document requirements via IMI should ease the tasks of
the home competent authority.
Home Member State authorities are already involved in
issuance of the required documents or certificates to the
outgoing professionals under current procedures.
The transfer of certain tasks to the home Member State was one
of the key principles of the EPC procedure, which was
embedded in the revised Directive and was aimed at enhancing
mutual trust between Member State authorities.
In the case of justified doubts, the host Member State
competent authorities will be able to contact the home Member
State for additional information or to contact the applicant
directly.
In the case of temporary provision of services without prior
check of qualifications, the host Member State competent
authority will not be involved in taking the decision to issue the
EPC. However, it will be informed about the outcome of the
EPC procedure and will be able to see on the basis of which
documents the home Member Stare authority has taken a
decision to issue the EPC.
26
27