1.

A national measure imposing, for purposes of reimbursement of national and cross-border healthcare, a requirement of specialisation of the practitioner delivering the healthcare is compatible with Article 36 EEA and Article 7 of Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare only if the conditions to prove the required qualification of the practitioner delivering the healthcare are neither discriminatory nor constitute an obstacle to the free movement of patients, unless they are objectively justified by planning requirements relating to the object of ensuring sufficient and permanent access to a balanced range of high-quality treatment in the EEA State concerned, or to the wish to control costs and avoid, as far as possible, any waste of financial, technical and human resources.

2.

In order to establish whether the healthcare practitioner in another EEA State has an equivalent specialisation or substantive competence, a specialisation listed in Annex V to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications may be deemed sufficient proof of substantive competence but cannot be considered necessary to prove substantive competence. Any assessment undertaken by an EEA State’s authorities under Article 7(7) of Directive 2011/24/EU to determine whether the treating dental practitioner has equivalent competence to that required for reimbursement purposes must not be limited to cases in which the speciality in question or equivalent formal competence is not listed in Annex V.

3.

The competent authorities in the State of affiliation must also conduct an assessment in order to determine whether the treating healthcare practitioner has equivalent competence to that required under national law, even if the specialisation is included by the State of treatment in Annex V to Directive 2005/36/EC but is not possessed by the healthcare practitioner. The administrative procedures connected with the equivalence assessment must not, however, represent an unjustified additional burden for patients choosing to receive treatment in another EEA State compared to patients seeking treatment in Norway.