Annexes to SEC(2011)1559 - Executive summary of the impact assessment - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | SEC(2011)1559 - Executive summary of the impact assessment. |
|---|---|
| document | SEC(2011)1559  |
| date | December 19, 2011 |
The following options are considered in the impact assessment: 1). No action; 2). Immediate replacement of the ISIC classification of 1958 by another classification; 3). Update of the ISIC classification of 1958 with the most recent ISIC classification dated 2008; 4). Introduce more flexibility in order to allow a modernisation of the classification in the future.
Option 4 should be the preferred one: it allows reviewing the classification of activities at a later stage, drawing on the results of a study which would assess the impacts on different stakeholders.
4.4.Establishing in another Member State
4.4.1.Qualifications levels
If there is a difference of two or more qualification levels between the qualification of the applicant and the qualification required in the host Member State, the applicant is excluded from the benefits of the Directive, such as procedural safeguards. The relevance of the qualifications levels in the Directive has been questioned, mainly for its lack of consistency with the European Qualifications Framework2.
The following options are considered in the impact assessment: 1). No action at EU level; 2). Simplify the classification of education levels; 3). Remove the classification from the Directive.
Option 2 is the preferred one as it would reduce the current legal uncertainty related to the applications examined under the Treaty. The existing classification would continue to constitute a reference point for comparing qualifications.
4.4.2.Partial access
Economic activities associated with a particular profession can differ significantly from one Member State to another. An aptitude test or an adaptation period may not always compensate for these differences. As an alternative to completing new training in the host Member State, the European Court of Justice laid down the principle of partial access to a profession3.
The impact assessment considers the following options: 1). No action; 2). Introduce the possibility of partial access in the Directive for all professions; 3). Introduce the possibility of partial access in the Directive but exclude professions with public health implications.
Option 3 is the preferred option. It can reduce obstacles to mobility while taking into account consumer protection and patient safety.
4.4.3.Mobility from non-regulating to regulating Member States (establishment)
Professionals coming from non-regulating countries are currently obliged to demonstrate 2 years of professional experience in the last 10 years or prove that they have completed "regulated education and training" geared to the specific profession.
The impact assessment discusses the following options: 1). No action; 2). Broaden the concept of regulated education and training; 3). Remove all specific requirements.
Option 3 is the preferred option since it would simplify the administrative requirements for professionals coming from non-regulating countries.
4.5.Moving on temporary basis
The introduction of a specific regime for the free provision of cross-border services has been the major innovation of the Professional Qualifications Directive in 2005. However, competent authorities reported limited experience. This might be linked to the legal to the requirements imposed on professionals and to the lack of clarity of some provisions.
4.5.1.Requirements imposed on professionals from non-regulating Member States
The following options are presented: 1). No action; 2). Broaden the concept of "regulated education and training"; 3). Exempt professionals accompanying consumers.
Option 3 offers flexibility and a more effective solution even if limited to a smaller proportion of professionals. Activities with public health and safety risk should be excluded from Option 3.
4.5.2.Temporary mobility with prior check of the qualifications
Several options are discussed: 1). No action; 2). Member States would produce a list of professions with health and safety implications; 3). The Commission would define a list of professions with health and safety implications.
Option 2 should be preferred because it gives more clarity to the existing provisions without important additional costs.
4.5.3.Lack of clarity on the scope of the regime
The impact assessment considers the following options: 1). No action; 2). Provide a guidance document to competent authorities; 3). Specify a maximum duration/frequency for the "temporary and occasional provision of services".
It concludes that Option 2 is the preferred one as it presents a non-binding and flexible solution in line with the Court case law while providing the necessary guidance to competent authorities.
4.6.Scope of the Directive
The Directive applies only to a certain extent to the holders of third country qualifications and does not cover not fully qualified professionals and notaries.
4.6.1.Not fully qualified professionals
The following options are discussed: 1). No action; 2). Enlarge the scope of the Directive; 3). Option 2 and clarify the situation in the home Member State.
Option 3 is the most efficient solution as it not only organises the movement of the professional to the host Member State but also his return to the home Member State.
4.6.2.Third country qualifications
Three options are discussed: 1). No action; 2). Reduce the requirement from 3 to 2 years of professional experience; 3). Enlarge the scope of the Directive to cover the recognition of third country qualifications (for the first recognition).
Option 1 should be preferred as the two other options are not supported by Member States and prove to be over ambitious at this moment.
4.6.3.Notaries
The impact assessment considers the following options: 1). No action; 2). Excluding notaries from the Directive; 3). Extending the Directive to cases of establishment ; 4). Establishment with limited scope of provision of services; 5). Full application of the Directive.
It concludes that option 4 responds best to the specificities of the profession.
4.7.Protection of patients
Public health emerged as a particular issue during the evaluation of the Directive.
4.7.1.Guarantees on the status of professionals
Some stakeholders, even a few governments, suggested making the continuous professional development (CPD) of health professionals mandatory under the Directive. There is also a concern of competent authorities on doctors or nurses who have been out of practice for many years or might be barred from practising due to disciplinary or penal sanctions.
The following options are discussed: 1). No action; 2). Adding new requirements on CPD and recent professional experience; 3). Adding new requirements with respect to recent professional experience; 4). Introduction of an alert mechanism combined with increased transparency between Member States on CPD.
Option 4 is the preferred one as it effectively reduces risks of health professionals moving from one Member State to another whilst not longer allowed to practice.
4.7.2.Guarantees on language skills
Language knowledge of professionals is a sensitive issue for patients. The Directive imposes an obligation upon the professionals but does not prescribe any particular means by which Member States should enforce the obligation. Concerns have been raised in this regard for health professionals.
The impact assessment analyses the following options: 1). No action; 2). Introduce systematic checking of language skills on health professionals and harmonise it at EU level; 3). Clarify the rules on how to enforce checking language skills for professionals on a case by case basis.
Option 3 is the preferred option as it ensures a balance between the need to ensure patient safety and the required effectiveness of recognition procedures.
4.8.Lack of transparency and justification of qualifications requirements in regulated professions
800 categories of professions are regulated within the EU. The reserved tasks associated to regulated professions as well as the type of qualification required can vary significantly from one Member State to another.
Given the current debate on the number of regulated professions (and the request of the European Parliament to reduce the number), it seems first of all necessary to ensure a greater transparency and justification of regulated professions.
The impact assessment examines the following options: 1) No action at EU level; 2) Ensure greater transparency on the regulation of the professions; 3) Option 2 and launch a mutual evaluation exercise; 4) Option 2 and introduce a specific regime for professions regulated in only one Member State.
Option 3 should be preferred, as it would effectively improve transparency and encourages Member States to assess and compare their national regulations.
5.Overall impacts of the package
Policy options are combined in a way to ensure the internal coherence of the initiative. The impact on the stakeholders is always considered as well as the administrative burden and compliance costs created by the preferred policy options.
6.Monitoring and evaluation
Specific indicators have been set to monitor the progress on the implementation of the Directive. Reporting obligations have also been foreseen in order to assess the functioning of the different recognition systems.
1Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p.22)
2Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning, OJ 2008/C 111/01
3Case C-330/03 of 19 January 2006, European Court reports 2006 Page I-801