Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)

16 June 2022 (*)

(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)

In Case C‑577/20,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court, Finland), made by decision of 29 October 2020, received at the Court on 4 November 2020, in the proceedings brought by

A

intervening party:

Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto,

THE COURT (First Chamber),

composed of A. Arabadjiev, President of the Chamber, L. Bay Larsen (Rapporteur), Vice-President of the Court, I. Ziemele, P.G. Xuereb and A. Kumin, Judges,

Advocate General: M. Szpunar,

Registrar: C. Strömholm, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 2 December 2021,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–        A, by A. Palmujoki, asianajaja, and J. Pihlaja,

–        Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto, by K. Heiskanen, M. Henriksson and M. Mikkonen, acting as Agents,

–        the Finnish Government, by M. Pere, acting as Agent,

–        the French Government, by A.-L. Desjonquères and N. Vincent, acting as Agents,

–        the Netherlands Government, by M.K. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents,

–        the Norwegian Government, by K.S. Borge, acting as Agent, and by I. Meinich and T. Sunde, advokater,

–        the European Commission, by L. Armati and T. Sevón, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 10 March 2022,

gives the following

Judgment

1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of 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 (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22), as amended by Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 (OJ 2013 L 354, p. 132) (‘Directive 2005/36’), and of Articles 45 and 49 TFEU.

2        The request was made in proceedings brought by A concerning the decision of the Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto (Licensing and Supervisory Authority for Social Affairs and Health, Finland; ‘Valvira’) refusing to grant her the right to use the professional title of psychotherapist in Finland.

 Legal framework

 European Union law

3        Recitals 1, 3, 6, 11, 17 and 44 of Directive 2005/36 read as follows:

‘(1)      Pursuant to Article 3(1)(c) of the Treaty, the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to the free movement of persons and services is one of the objectives of the Community. For nationals of the Member States, this includes, in particular, the right to pursue a profession, in a self-employed or employed capacity, in a Member State other than the one in which they have obtained their professional qualifications. In addition, Article 47(1) of the Treaty lays down that directives shall be issued for the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications.

…

(3)      The guarantee conferred by this Directive on persons having acquired their professional qualifications in a Member State to have access to the same profession and pursue it in another Member State with the same rights as nationals is without prejudice to compliance by the migrant professional with any non-discriminatory conditions of pursuit which might be laid down by the latter Member State, provided that these are objectively justified and proportionate.

…

(6)      The facilitation of service provision has to be ensured in the context of strict respect for public health and safety and consumer protection. Therefore, specific provisions should be envisaged for regulated professions having public health or safety implications, which provide cross-frontier services on a temporary or occasional basis.

…

(11)      In the case of the professions covered by the general system for the recognition of qualifications, hereinafter referred to as “the general system”, Member States should retain the right to lay down the minimum level of qualification required to ensure the quality of the services provided on their territory. However, pursuant to Articles 10, 39 and 43 of the Treaty, they should not require a national of a Member State to obtain qualifications, which they generally lay down only in terms of the diplomas awarded under their national educational system, where the person concerned has already obtained all or part of those qualifications in another Member State. As a result, it should be laid down that any host Member State in which a profession is regulated must take account of the qualifications obtained in another Member State and assess whether they correspond to those which it requires. The general system for recognition, however, does not prevent a Member State from making any person pursuing a profession on its territory subject to specific requirements due to the application of professional rules justified by the general public interest. Rules of this kind relate, for example, to organisation of the profession, professional standards, including those concerning ethics, and supervision and liability. Lastly, this Directive is not intended to interfere with Member States’ legitimate interest in preventing any of their citizens from evading enforcement of the national law relating to professions.

…

(17)      In order to take into account all situations for which there is still no provision relating to the recognition of professional qualifications, the general system should be extended to those cases which are not covered by a specific system, either where the profession is not covered by one of those systems or where, although the profession is covered by such a specific system, the applicant does not for some particular and exceptional reason meet the conditions to benefit from it.

…

(44)      This Directive is without prejudice to measures necessary to ensure a high level of health and consumer protection.’

4        Article 1 of that directive, entitled ‘Purpose’, provides:

‘This Directive establishes rules according to which a Member State which makes access to or pursuit of a regulated profession in its territory contingent upon possession of specific professional qualifications (referred to hereinafter as the host Member State) shall recognise professional qualifications obtained in one or more other Member States (referred to hereinafter as the home Member State) and which allow the holder of the said qualifications to pursue the same profession there, for access to and pursuit of that profession.

This Directive also establishes rules concerning partial access to a regulated profession and recognition of professional traineeships pursued in another Member State.’

5        Article 2 of that directive, entitled ‘Scope’, states in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 that it applies to all nationals of a Member State wishing to pursue a regulated profession in a Member State, including those belonging to the liberal professions, other than that in which they obtained their professional qualifications, on either a self-employed or employed basis.

6        Article 3 of that directive, headed ‘Definitions’, provides, in paragraph 1:

‘For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions apply:

(a)      “regulated profession”: a professional activity or group of professional activities, access to which, the pursuit of which, or one of the modes of pursuit of which is subject, directly or indirectly, by virtue of legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions to the possession of specific professional qualifications; in particular, the use of a professional title limited by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions to holders of a given professional qualification shall constitute a mode of pursuit. Where the first sentence of this definition does not apply, a profession referred to in paragraph 2 shall be treated as a regulated profession;

(b)      “professional qualifications”: qualifications attested by evidence of formal qualifications, an attestation of competence referred to in Article 11, point (a) (i) and/or professional experience;

(c)      “evidence of formal qualifications”: diplomas, certificates and other evidence issued by an authority in a Member State designated pursuant to legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions of that Member State and certifying successful completion of professional training obtained mainly in the Community. Where the first sentence of this definition does not apply, evidence of formal qualifications referred to in paragraph 3 shall be treated as evidence of formal qualifications;

(d)      “competent authority”: any authority or body empowered by a Member State specifically to issue or receive training diplomas and other documents or information and to receive the applications, and take the decisions, referred to in this Directive;

(e)      “regulated education and training”: any training which is specifically geared to the pursuit of a given profession and which comprises a course or courses complemented, where appropriate, by professional training, or probationary or professional practice.

The structure and level of the professional training, probationary or professional practice shall be determined by the laws, regulations or administrative provisions of the Member State concerned or monitored or approved by the authority designated for that purpose;

…’

7        Article 4 of Directive 2005/36, entitled ‘Effects of recognition’, provides:

‘1.      The recognition of professional qualifications by the host Member State shall allow beneficiaries to gain access in that Member State to the same profession as that for which they are qualified in the home Member State and to pursue it in the host Member State under the same conditions as its nationals.

2.      For the purposes of this Directive, the profession which the applicant wishes to pursue in the host Member State is the same as that for which he is qualified in his home Member State if the activities covered are comparable.

…’

8        Article 13 of that directive, entitled ‘Conditions for recognition’, is worded as follows:

‘1.      If access to or pursuit of a regulated profession in a host Member State is contingent upon possession of specific professional qualifications, the competent authority of that Member State shall permit applicants to access and pursue that profession, under the same conditions as apply to its nationals, if they possess an attestation of competence or evidence of formal qualifications referred to in Article 11, required by another Member State in order to gain access to and pursue that profession on its territory.

Attestations of competence or evidence of formal qualifications shall be issued by a competent authority in a Member State, designated in accordance with the laws, regulations or administrative provisions of that Member State.

2.      Access to, and pursuit of, a profession as described in paragraph 1 shall also be granted to applicants who have pursued the profession in question on a full-time basis for one year or for an equivalent overall duration on a part-time basis during the previous 10 years in another Member State which does not regulate that profession, and who possess one or more attestations of competence or evidence of formal qualifications issued by another Member State which does not regulate the profession.

Attestations of competence and evidence of formal qualifications shall satisfy the following conditions:

(a)      they are issued by a competent authority in a Member State, designated in accordance with the laws, regulations or administrative provisions of that Member State;

(b)      they attest that the holder has been prepared for the pursuit of the profession in question.

The one year of professional experience referred to in the first subparagraph may not, however, be required if the evidence of formal qualifications which the applicant possesses certifies regulated education and training.

…’

 Finnish law

 The Law on healthcare professionals

9        According to point 2 of the first subparagraph of Paragraph 2 of the laki terveydenhuollon ammattihenkilöistä (559/1994) (Law on healthcare professionals (559/1994); ‘the Law on healthcare professionals’), for the purposes of that law, ‘healthcare professional’ means a person who, under that law, is entitled to use the professional title of healthcare professional referred to in a government decree (professional holder of a protected professional title). According to the second subparagraph of Paragraph 2 of the same law, a licensed professional who is the holder of authorisation or a protected title is entitled to pursue the profession in question and to use the professional title associated with it. Other persons with sufficient training, experience and professional skills may also pursue a profession whose title is protected.

10      According to the third subparagraph of Paragraph 3a of the Law on healthcare professionals, Valvira is the competent authority for healthcare professionals referred to in Directive 2005/36 and in the laki ammattipätevyyden tunnustamisesta (1384/2015) (Law on the recognition of professional qualifications (1384/2015); ‘the Law on the recognition of professional qualifications’).

 The decree on healthcare professionals

11      In accordance with Article 1 of the asetus terveydenhuollon ammattihenkilöistä (564/1994) [Decree on healthcare professionals; ‘the Decree on healthcare professionals’], the professional titles for professionals holding a protected professional title, referred to in subparagraph (2) of the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Law on healthcare professionals, include, inter alia, the title of psychotherapist.

12      According to the first paragraph of Article 2a of the Decree on healthcare professionals, for a person to be allowed to use the protected professional title of psychotherapist, he must have undergone training as a psychotherapist provided by a university, or by a university and another educational institution.

 Law on the recognition of professional qualifications

13      According to the first paragraph of Article 6 of the Law on the recognition of professional qualifications, the recognition of professional qualifications is based on an attestation of competence, special evidence of formal qualifications or a combination of those documents issued by a competent authority of a Member State other than Finland. The recognition of professional qualifications is contingent upon the person concerned having the right, in his or her home Member State, to pursue the profession for the purpose of which he or she is seeking a decision on the recognition of his or her professional qualifications.

14      According to the second subparagraph of Paragraph 6 of the Law on the recognition of professional qualifications, the recognition of professional qualifications also applies to applicants who, in the previous 10 years, have pursued their profession full-time for one year or part-time for an equivalent period in a Member State other than the Republic of Finland in which the profession in question is not regulated and who possess one or more attestations of competence or evidence of formal qualifications. Those documents must demonstrate the holder’s ability to pursue that profession. However, one year’s professional experience is not required if the applicant’s evidence of formal qualifications relates to regulated training.

 The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

15      A, a Finnish national, applied to Valvira, on the basis of a Postgraduate Diploma in Solution Focused Therapy (‘the training course at issue’), awarded on 27 November 2017 by the University of the West of England (United Kingdom) (‘the UWE’), for the right to use the professional title of psychotherapist, which is protected under Finnish law.

16      The training course at issue was organised by the UWE in Finland and in the Finnish language, in partnership with Helsingin Psykoterapiainstituutti Oy, a Finnish public limited company operating in Finland.

17      During 2017, Valvira had been contacted by former students from the course who had expressed their concerns about numerous shortcomings in the content and practical arrangements of the course, compared with the stated objectives. Valvira had contacted other students who had been on the course and who had described similar experiences.

18      Having doubts as to the equivalence of the training course at issue with the requirements laid down by Finnish regulations on access to and pursuit of the profession of psychotherapist, Valvira, by decision of 29 June 2018, rejected A’s application, mainly on the ground that she had failed to provide it with sufficient information about the course content. By decision of 10 September 2018, Valvira rejected A’s objection against its decision of 29 June 2018.

19      By judgment of 25 April 2019, the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Administrative Court, Helsinki, Finland) dismissed A’s appeal against Valvira’s decision of 10 September 2018. That court held that the training course at issue had to be regarded as having been completed in the United Kingdom, notwithstanding the fact that, in practice, it had been organised in Finland and in the Finnish language. However, the general system for the recognition of evidence of formal qualifications provided for in Directive 2005/36 did not require A’s application to be granted, since she had not pursued the profession of psychotherapist in the United Kingdom, where the profession and training of psychotherapists are not regulated, or in another Member State with a similar system.

20      Finding that the training course at issue had significant shortcomings and differences compared with psychotherapist training in Finland, the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Administrative Court, Helsinki) held that Valvira had been correct in deciding that A had failed to demonstrate that her knowledge and qualifications were equivalent to those that would have been acquired by a person who had undergone training as a psychotherapist in Finland. Nor did the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the TFEU make Valvira’s rejection decision unlawful.

21      In her appeal against that judgment to the referring court, the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court, Finland), A submits that the training course at issue must be regarded as having been provided in Finland. Moreover, the UWE, as the competent authority, has certified that the course meets the requirements for psychotherapist training in Finland, as set out in the Decree on healthcare professionals. Accordingly, the training course at issue should be recognised as entitling her to use the professional title of psychotherapist, as she requests.

22      In the event that the training course at issue is not regarded as having been provided in Finland, its equivalence with the psychotherapist training organised in Finland must be assessed on the basis of the documents relating to the curriculum and the quality of the training programme at issue, as produced by A and the training organisers. Valvira made no such assessment, but based its rejection decision on anonymous letters, an opinion requested from a Finnish university that is one of the UWE’s competitors, and interviews that it conducted itself. However, the principle of good faith as enshrined in EU law means that Valvira cannot call into question a document issued by the UWE as the competent authority of another Member State.

23      For its part, Valvira considers that psychotherapist training carried out in another Member State should be comparable to the training currently provided by Finnish universities. However, according to that authority, in many respects, the training course at issue does not meet the material and qualitative conditions that psychotherapy courses must satisfy in Finland, and therefore does not give rise to the right to use the professional title of psychotherapist. Valvira adds that, in principle, it relies on the certificates issued by universities and other educational institutions in other Member States and on the information that they provide about the content and practical arrangements of the courses offered. Furthermore, it examines them only to the extent necessary to determine whether or not there are differences between the Finnish training course and the corresponding training course in the other Member State.

24      The referring court notes that in another case it held that the training course at issue could not be regarded as having been completed in Finland, within the meaning of the Law on healthcare professionals. In Finland, the profession of psychotherapist is a regulated profession, as defined in Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 2005/36, since the right to use the professional title is granted only to those who meet the professional qualifications required by the applicable Finnish regulations.

25      The profession of psychotherapist is subject to the general system of recognition of evidence of formal qualifications provided for in Articles 10 to 14 of that directive. Since the profession of psychotherapist and the related training are not regulated in the United Kingdom, Article 13(2) of that directive applies to A’s situation.

26      However, according to the referring court, since A does not satisfy the condition laid down in that article whereby she must have pursued the profession of psychotherapist in another Member State where that profession is not regulated, she cannot claim the right to access that profession in Finland.

27      The referring court questions whether, notwithstanding the provisions of Directive 2005/36, A’s situation should also be examined in the light of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Articles 45 and 49 TFEU and the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice. If so, the referring court asks whether, in order to ensure that the diploma awarded in another Member State certifies that its holder has knowledge and qualifications which are, if not identical, at least equivalent to those attested by the national diploma, the competent authority of the host Member State may also rely on other information which it has obtained concerning the arrangements for the training course at issue or whether it must rely on the information provided in that respect by a university in another Member State, such as the UWE.

28      In those circumstances, the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1)      Are the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the [TEU] and Directive [2005/36] to be interpreted as meaning that the competent authority of the host Member State must assess an applicant’s right to pursue a regulated profession in accordance with Articles 45 and 49 TFEU and the relevant case-law (in particular, judgment of 7 May 1991, [Vlassopoulou, C‑340/89, EU:C:1991:193], and judgment of 6 October 2015, [Brouillard, C‑298/14, EU:C:2015:652]) even though the conditions for the pursuit of a regulated profession are supposed to be standardised in Article 13(2) of Directive [2005/36], and, under those conditions, the host Member State must permit the pursuit of a profession by an applicant who holds evidence of formal qualifications from a Member State in which the profession is not regulated, but who does not satisfy the requirement for the pursuit of the profession laid down in that provision of the directive?

(2)      If the first question referred is answered in the affirmative: In the light of the statements made in [the judgment of 6 October 2015, Brouillard (C‑298/14, EU:C:2015:652)] (paragraph 55 of the judgment) concerning the exclusive criteria for assessing the equivalence of certificates, does EU law preclude the competent authority of the host Member State, in a situation such as that at issue in the present case, from also basing its assessment of the equivalence of training on information other than that obtained from the training provider or the authorities of the other Member State regarding the precise content of the training and the manner in which it is implemented?’

 Preliminary remarks

29      It should be noted that the relevant facts in the main proceedings occurred when EU law still applied in the United Kingdom. Accordingly, Articles 45 and 49 TFEU and Directive 2005/36 may apply in the present case.

 The first question

30      By its first question, the referring court is asking, in essence, whether Article 13(2) of Directive 2005/36 and Articles 45 and 49 TFEU are to 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.

31      As a preliminary point, it should be noted in the present case that, although A took a course organised by the UWE in Finland and in the Finnish language, in partnership with Helsingin Psykoterapiainstituutti, the fact remains that the diploma in psychotherapy was awarded to A at the end of that course by the UWE, which is based in the United Kingdom.

32      However, according to Article 2(1) of Directive 2005/36, the latter applies to all Member State nationals, including those belonging to the liberal professions, wishing to pursue a regulated profession in a Member State other than that in which they obtained their professional qualifications, on either a self-employed or an employed basis.

33      Moreover, pursuant to Article 3(1)(b) to (d) of that directive, ‘professional qualifications’ means, inter alia, qualifications attested by evidence of formal qualifications, such as, in particular, a diploma issued by a competent authority of a Member State and certifying professional training acquired mainly in the European Union.

34      It follows that, where the evidence of formal qualifications at issue in the main proceedings, certifying professional training acquired in the European Union, has been issued by a competent authority of a Member State other than that in which A intends to pursue a regulated profession, the situation at issue in the main proceedings is likely to fall within the scope of Directive 2005/36.

35      However, it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling, and from the first question in particular, that A does not meet the requirement laid down in Article 13(2) of Directive 2005/36 of having pursued the relevant profession during the minimum period referred to in that article. In those circumstances, not only is A unable to rely on that provision, nor on the general system for the recognition of evidence of formal qualifications provided for in Articles 10 to 14 of Directive 2005/36, but she cannot rely on any other system for the recognition of professional qualifications established by that directive.

36      It must therefore be determined whether a situation such as A’s is to be assessed under Articles 45 and 49 TFEU.

37      First, it must be noted that the Court has held that the freedom of movement of persons would not be fully realised if the Member States were able to refuse to grant the benefit of the freedoms guaranteed by Articles 45 and 49 TFEU to those of their nationals who had taken advantage of the provisions of EU law to acquire professional qualifications in a Member State other than that of which they are nationals. The same consideration applies where a national of a Member State has obtained in another Member State a university qualification of which he or she intends to make use in the Member State of which he or she is a national (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 October 2015, Brouillard, C‑298/14, EU:C:2015:652, paragraph 27).

38      In the case that gave rise to the judgment of 6 October 2015, Brouillard (C‑298/14, EU:C:2015:652), where the person concerned relied, in the Member State of which he was a national, on a university diploma that he had obtained in another Member State, the Court of Justice held, in paragraph 29 of that judgment, that the benefit of the provisions of the TFEU relating to free movement of persons could not be denied to him, and the fact that that diploma was obtained following completion of a correspondence course was irrelevant in that respect.

39      The same would apply to a person such as A, who relies, in the Member State of which she is a national, on a university diploma that she obtained in another Member State, even if it is as a result of training provided in the first Member State in partnership with an authority competent to award such a diploma in the other Member State.

40      Second, it is important to note that the authorities of a Member State to which an application has been made by an EU national for authorisation to pursue a profession, access to which depends, under national legislation, on the possession of a diploma or professional qualification or on periods of practical experience, are required to take into consideration all the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications of the person concerned and his or her relevant experience, by comparing the specialised knowledge and abilities so certified, and that experience, with the knowledge and qualifications required by the national legislation (judgment of 8 July 2021, Lietuvos Respublikos sveikatos apsaugos ministerija, C‑166/20, EU:C:2021:554, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).

41      Since that case-law is merely the expression in judicial decisions of a principle inherent in the fundamental freedoms of the TFEU, the legal effect of that principle cannot be reduced as a result of the adoption of directives on mutual recognition of diplomas (judgment of 8 July 2021, Lietuvos Respublikos sveikatos apsaugos ministerija, C‑166/20, EU:C:2021:554, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).

42      In effect, it is not the purpose of the directives on mutual recognition of diplomas, inter alia Directive 2005/36, to make recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications more difficult in situations falling outside their scope, nor may they have such an effect (judgment of 3 March 2022, Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto (Basic medical training), C‑634/20, EU:C:2022:149, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).

43      However, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, where, as is apparent from paragraph 35 above, the person concerned does not satisfy the conditions of any of the systems for the recognition of professional qualifications established by Directive 2005/36, the host Member State concerned must comply with its obligations with regard to the recognition of professional qualifications, as set out in paragraph 40 above, which apply to situations covered by both Article 45 TFEU and Article 49 TFEU (see, by analogy, judgment of 8 July 2021, Lietuvos Respublikos sveikatos apsaugos ministerija, C‑166/20, EU:C:2021:554, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited).

44      In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question must be that Article 13(2) of Directive 2005/36 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.

 The second question

45      By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether EU law, and in particular Articles 45 and 49 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the competent authority of the host Member State, when it receives an application for authorisation to pursue a regulated profession in that Member State, from also basing its assessment of the equivalence of the training course relied on by the applicant with the corresponding training courses in that Member State on information concerning the exact content and practical arrangements of that course provided by persons other than the course organisers or by the authorities of another Member State.

46      It should be recalled that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which the person concerned does not satisfy the conditions of any of the systems for the recognition of professional qualifications established by Directive 2005/36, but to whom Article 45 TFEU or Article 49 TFEU applies, the Member State concerned must comply with its obligations with regard to the recognition of professional qualifications, as referred to in paragraph 40 above (see, by analogy, judgment of 3 March 2022, Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto (Basic medical training), C‑634/20, EU:C:2022:149, paragraph 41).

47      The comparative examination procedure referred to in paragraph 40 above must enable the authorities of the host Member State to verify, on an objective basis, whether the foreign diploma certifies that its holder has knowledge and qualifications which are, if not identical, at least equivalent to those attested by the national diploma. That assessment of the equivalence of the foreign diploma must be carried out exclusively in the light of the level of knowledge and qualifications which its holder can be assumed, by virtue of that diploma, to possess, having regard to the nature and duration of the studies and practical training to which the diploma relates (judgment of 3 March 2022, Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto (Basic medical training), C‑634/20, EU:C:2022:149, paragraph 42 and the case-law cited).

48      In that respect, it is important to note that this comparative examination procedure presupposes mutual trust among Member States in the evidence of professional qualifications issued by each Member State. Consequently, the authority of the host Member State is in principle required to consider authentic a document such as a diploma issued by the authority of another Member State.

49      However, when the competent authority of a Member State entertains serious doubts, which go beyond mere suspicion, about the authenticity or accuracy of a document, the issuing authority or institution must, on the application of the first authority, re-examine the basis of the document concerned and, where appropriate, withdraw it (judgment of 19 June 2003, Tennah-Durez, C‑110/01, EU:C:2003:357, paragraph 80).

50      Thus, where the competent authority of a Member State sends the issuing authority specific information forming a consistent body of evidence suggesting that the diploma relied on by the applicant does not reflect the level of knowledge and qualifications that the applicant can be presumed to have acquired under the system referred to in paragraph 47 above, the issuing authority is required, in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation set out in Article 4(3) TEU, to review, in the light of that evidence, the grounds for issuing that diploma and, where appropriate, to withdraw it.

51      Such specific information may include, where appropriate, information sent both by persons other than the organisers of the training course and by the authorities of another Member State acting in an official capacity.

52      The authority of the host Member State, which, as is apparent from paragraph 48 above, is in principle required to consider authentic a document such as a diploma issued by the authority of another Member State, cannot, in principle, call into question the level of knowledge and professional qualifications that the applicant can be presumed to have acquired when the issuing authority has reviewed, in the light of the information referred to in paragraph 50 above, the grounds for issuing that document, without withdrawing it (see, by analogy, judgment of 19 June 2003, Tennah-Durez, C‑110/01, EU:C:2003:357, paragraph 79). It is only in exceptional cases that the competent authority of the host Member State would be justified in calling into question the level of knowledge and qualifications that the applicant can be presumed to have acquired.

53      Thus, if the circumstances of the case, which arose, as in the main proceedings, in the territory of the host Member State, should manifestly reveal the lack of authenticity of the diploma, that Member State cannot be required to overlook them (see, by analogy, judgment of 27 September 1989, van de Bijl, 130/88, EU:C:1989:349, paragraphs 25 and 26).

54      The host Member State cannot be refused the right to take measures in order to prevent the freedom of movement of persons enshrined in the TFEU from being used by the persons concerned in order to evade the vocational training requirements imposed on holders of a national diploma (see, by analogy, judgment of 27 September 1989, van de Bijl, 130/88, EU:C:1989:349, paragraph 26).

55      In particular, it has been held that the protection of public health constitutes an overriding reason in the general interest capable of justifying a national measure restricting those freedoms of movement, provided that it is appropriate in order to attain the objective pursued and that it does not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 September 2017, Malta Dental Technologists Association and Reynaud, C‑125/16, EU:C:2017:707, paragraphs 58 and 59).

56      In that context, it should be made clear that the lack of authenticity of a diploma is manifest, in particular, where it is clear that the actual content of the training provided differs considerably from the content of the training course as evidenced by the relevant diploma.

57      In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second question must be that 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.

 Costs

58      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules:

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.

[Signatures]

*      Language of the case: Finnish.