Case C-577/20, Work and Residence Permit
Are the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty on European Union and Directive 2005/36/EC 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, C-340/89, Vlassopoulou, and judgment of 6 October 2015, C-298/14, Brouillard) even though the conditions for the pursuit of a regulated profession are supposed to be standardised in Article 13(2) of Directive 2005/36/EC, 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?
If the first question referred is answered in the affirmative: In the light of the statements made in Case C-298/14, Brouillard (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?
A – v – Sosiaali-ja terveysalan lupa-ja valvontavirasto, reference lodged by the orkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) on 4 November 2020