News
BackUnder Commissioner Michel Barnier of the Directorate General for Internal Market and Services, the European Commission has published a Communication, which caused a stir in particular with German trade associations. The reason for their displeasure is the discussion of the question, which professions are resp. will in future be subject to national restrictions. Whilst the Commission declares that this was only an attempt to create more transparency, German business representatives fear an attack on Germany’s competitiveness.
National regulations vs. mobility?
On 2 October 2013, the Directorate General for Internal Market and Services of the European Commission presented a new Communication in respect of access to national regulated professions. These include professions such as architects or pharmacists, who, if they want to work in other EU Member States, are subject to a wide range of regulations. In order to be allowed to practice in such areas, professionals belonging to these sectors must have precisely defined qualifications, which are different in most countries.
In its Communication, the Commission tries to emphasise that these national regulations are justified on principle. They can, for example, do a lot for consumer protection by ensuring regulated access to a certain quality standard.
However, based on efforts towards the so-called “Completion of the Internal Market”, the Commission is voicing concerns whether these national regulations would indeed be target-aimed in this context. It is even more concerned about unnecessary aggravated access barriers for young employees in their home country, based on the deterrent effect of such restrictions, which the Commission presumes. In particular, mobility within the European Union was at risk as the lack of knowledge concerning other national regulations would be even more of an obstacle for potential migration movements by European citizens.
Key elements of the Communication
The Commission does not mention full harmonisation of national regulations on access to professions; however, it urges Member States to take a first step to ensure more transparency. A list of regulated professions shall be prepared for each Member State, which the Commission would combine as a “European Professional Card of regulated professions”, which it would then publish.
In a second step, the Commission insists on Member States evaluating these access restrictions independently. They shall engage in joint discussions on their economic feasibility and aim at possible reforms. The intention is to also include representatives of the trade associations affected.
Criticism by German craft trades
Holger Schwannecke, General of the German Confederation of Skilled Crafts and Small Businesses (ZDH), voiced concerns and criticism with regard to this Commission Communication. This was not the way to efficiently tackle the lack of skilled workers in Europe, which had been addressed in the Commission paper. On the contrary, it might even happen that successful national concepts such as the Dual Training Model would run the risk of deteriorating because of harmonisation efforts.
The current system had among other contributed to Germany’s good position during the crisis, whilst the reform, contemplated by the Commission, might put German competitiveness at risk. There was particularly great concern with regard to quality assurance of craft products. Uniform European access regulations to so far regulated professions would mean a watering down of German quality standards.
What now?
Basically, nothing substantial has happened yet. The Commission has not started legislative initiative. The Communication does not include a single paragraph where the uniform regulation of national access restrictions of regulated professions has been demanded. Still, the concerns of the German Confederation of Skilled Crafts have not been completely just pulled out of thin air, as they are above all the product of the uncertainty in respect of more detailed intentions of the Commission resp. the potential impact of such transparency and evaluation efforts.
The Commission also declared during the discussion on the Directive on the award of concession contracts that its only objective was to create transparency. However, taking a closer look, it quickly became clear that the implied target actually meant “more competition”.
It remains to be seen, which discussion processes the new Commission proposal will entail and whether the Commission itself will stimulate further initiatives.
Further information:
Communication of the European Commission on evaluating national regulations on access to professions
On 2 October 2013, the Directorate General for Internal Market and Services of the European Commission presented a new Communication in respect of access to national regulated professions. These include professions such as architects or pharmacists, who, if they want to work in other EU Member States, are subject to a wide range of regulations. In order to be allowed to practice in such areas, professionals belonging to these sectors must have precisely defined qualifications, which are different in most countries.
In its Communication, the Commission tries to emphasise that these national regulations are justified on principle. They can, for example, do a lot for consumer protection by ensuring regulated access to a certain quality standard.
However, based on efforts towards the so-called “Completion of the Internal Market”, the Commission is voicing concerns whether these national regulations would indeed be target-aimed in this context. It is even more concerned about unnecessary aggravated access barriers for young employees in their home country, based on the deterrent effect of such restrictions, which the Commission presumes. In particular, mobility within the European Union was at risk as the lack of knowledge concerning other national regulations would be even more of an obstacle for potential migration movements by European citizens.
Key elements of the Communication
The Commission does not mention full harmonisation of national regulations on access to professions; however, it urges Member States to take a first step to ensure more transparency. A list of regulated professions shall be prepared for each Member State, which the Commission would combine as a “European Professional Card of regulated professions”, which it would then publish.
In a second step, the Commission insists on Member States evaluating these access restrictions independently. They shall engage in joint discussions on their economic feasibility and aim at possible reforms. The intention is to also include representatives of the trade associations affected.
Criticism by German craft trades
Holger Schwannecke, General of the German Confederation of Skilled Crafts and Small Businesses (ZDH), voiced concerns and criticism with regard to this Commission Communication. This was not the way to efficiently tackle the lack of skilled workers in Europe, which had been addressed in the Commission paper. On the contrary, it might even happen that successful national concepts such as the Dual Training Model would run the risk of deteriorating because of harmonisation efforts.
The current system had among other contributed to Germany’s good position during the crisis, whilst the reform, contemplated by the Commission, might put German competitiveness at risk. There was particularly great concern with regard to quality assurance of craft products. Uniform European access regulations to so far regulated professions would mean a watering down of German quality standards.
What now?
Basically, nothing substantial has happened yet. The Commission has not started legislative initiative. The Communication does not include a single paragraph where the uniform regulation of national access restrictions of regulated professions has been demanded. Still, the concerns of the German Confederation of Skilled Crafts have not been completely just pulled out of thin air, as they are above all the product of the uncertainty in respect of more detailed intentions of the Commission resp. the potential impact of such transparency and evaluation efforts.
The Commission also declared during the discussion on the Directive on the award of concession contracts that its only objective was to create transparency. However, taking a closer look, it quickly became clear that the implied target actually meant “more competition”.
It remains to be seen, which discussion processes the new Commission proposal will entail and whether the Commission itself will stimulate further initiatives.
Further information:
Communication of the European Commission on evaluating national regulations on access to professions