Hakemisto 
 Edellinen 
 Seuraava 
 Koko teksti 
Menettely : 2017/2073(INI)
Elinkaari istunnossa
Asiakirjan elinkaari : A8-0401/2017

Käsiteltäväksi jätetyt tekstit :

A8-0401/2017

Keskustelut :

PV 18/01/2018 - 3
CRE 18/01/2018 - 3

Äänestykset :

PV 18/01/2018 - 6.7
Äänestysselitykset

Hyväksytyt tekstit :

P8_TA(2018)0019

Puheenvuorot
Torstai 18. tammikuuta 2018 - Strasbourg Lopullinen versio

3. Ammattipätevyysdirektiivin täytäntöönpano ja ammattipalvelujen uudistamistarve (keskustelu)
Puheenvuorot videotiedostoina
PV
MPphoto
 

  President. – The next item is the report by Nicola Danti, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on the implementation of Directive 2005/36/EC as regards regulation and the need for reform in professional services (2017/2073(INI)) (A8—0401/2017).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nicola Danti, relatore. – Signora Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, oggi in Europa si contano più di 5 500 professioni regolamentate, a cui vanno aggiunte molte altre non oggetto di regolamentazione. Si tratta di un quadro che varia moltissimo da paese a paese – si va dalle 76 professioni regolamentate in Lituania fino alle 543 dell'Ungheria – e che coinvolge il 22 % della forza lavoro europea.

Con la relazione che presentiamo oggi per la discussione e il voto in quest'Aula, il Parlamento intende rispondere alla comunicazione della Commissione europea relativa alle raccomandazioni di riforme nei servizi professionali. Questa iniziativa va accolta con favore, avendo il merito di fornire una valutazione complessiva dello stato di attuazione di tale direttiva e una panoramica delle norme che nei differenti Stati membri si applicano ad architetti, ingegneri civili, contabili, avvocati, consulenti di proprietà industriale, agenti immobiliari e guide turistiche.

Dalla comunicazione emerge anzitutto l'esigenza di dare una piena attuazione alle disposizioni della direttiva. Nel mondo delle professioni c'è bisogno di maggiore mobilità e maggiore concorrenza e dal documento della Commissione emergono innegabilmente spazi di manovra rilevanti nella normativa degli Stati membri.

D'altra parte ritengo che qualsiasi valutazione sull'efficacia e la proporzionalità delle normative nazionali debba essere assunta tenendo in considerazione non solo fattori di carattere economico e quantitativo, come troppo spesso avviene ed emerge dalla lettura dei documenti della Commissione europea. Il legame diretto individuato tra riforme e crescita economica, tra deregulation e creazione di nuova occupazione, non può e non deve costituire l'unica stella polare per i decisori politici.

È importante ribadire invece che la qualità dei servizi professionali rappresenta uno dei fattori chiave per preservare il nostro modello sociale ed economico e per garantire la competitività della nostra economia. Per questo motivo occorre promuovere regole che, da una parte, sostengano l'accesso dei giovani al mondo del lavoro, la crescita e l'innovazione ma che, al contempo, tutelino la qualità dei servizi erogati, gli obiettivi di pubblico interesse e i consumatori. Al fine di valutare la regolamentazione delle professioni è necessaria dunque una combinazione di considerazioni economiche e di valutazioni politiche a difesa degli obiettivi pubblici generali, nel rispetto della non discriminazione e della proporzionalità previste nei trattati.

Per preservare un'alta qualità dei servizi professionali abbiamo tuttavia bisogno non solamente di un quadro normativo efficace e proporzionato a livello dell'Unione europea ma anche di politiche attive a sostegno delle professioni, soprattutto in relazione alle sfide poste dalla globalizzazione e dalla digitalizzazione. Il libero professionista va considerato in una doppia dimensione: quella di professionista in senso stretto e quella di piccolo imprenditore. Occorrono dunque formazione permanente, servizi per favorire una maggiore mobilità intraeuropea e una maggiore propensione all'internazionalizzazione, una riduzione degli oneri burocratici e un più semplice accesso ai finanziamenti.

In particolare, va posta una forte attenzione all'impatto della digitalizzazione sui servizi professionali. Da una parte si possono certamente sottolineare le opportunità, dall'altra andranno attentamente valutati i risvolti in termini di occupazione e di qualità dei servizi erogati.

Cari colleghi, la competitività dell'Europa e la preservazione del nostro modello sociale, economico e culturale passano anche attraverso la tutela della qualità dei servizi professionali a beneficio di cittadini, imprese e autorità.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Karmenu Vella, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur Mr Danti for his report underlining the fundamental role of professions and the need for high-quality professional services as well as an effective regulatory environment.

Professional services do indeed play a crucial role in Europe’s society and economy and as Mr Danti said, they employ 22% of our labour force. They also account for almost a quarter of the value added in the European Union. That is precisely why we in the Commission have taken such a big interest in them.

But several studies have shown that the European professional services sector is seriously underperforming and its productivity is lagging behind. They conclude that a modernised legal framework could bring as many as 700 000 new jobs to the EU and increase EU GDP by up to 1%. In other words, the same order of magnitude as the EU budget.

This is not a minor matter. This is a call for action that we cannot ignore. We must create the best possible regulatory framework for professional services, a framework that does not restrict professionals’ freedom in an unwarranted fashion, but one that allows them to contribute maximally to the welfare of our society. I trust that this House shares our objective to deliver this framework.

Nearly five years ago the Council and Parliament asked the Member States to screen their professional regulation as part of a comprehensive mutual evaluation exercise, foreseen in the revised Professional Qualifications Directive, because even where legislation aims to improve social welfare the resulting rules will not always best succeed.

Indeed, even by the time they are adopted rules can be outdated or inadequate. They can be disproportionate or the accumulation of layers of rules can lead to an overly restrictive legal framework. National legislators may not always take into account the external effects on competitiveness, social welfare and the single market. So constant modernisation of the legal framework governing professional services in the EU is crucial.

We welcome the efforts by Member States since the adoption of the revised Qualifications Directive to increase the transparency of the regulation and assess the substance of the rules in place. This has helped to create a database at EU level offering both an important source of information for professionals and making it easier for them to move.

We continue to work hard to improve the functioning and user-friendliness of that database but sadly, Member States’ substantive assessment of the professional rules in place was often of a poor quality or even absent. Moreover, many failed to grasp this opportunity for reform to improve their regulatory framework, although experience with such reforms in the Italian pharmacy and Polish legal sector, for example, clearly show that removing unnecessary burdens creates benefits for all.

The evaluation showed that there are big differences in the way in which Member States regulate very similar professions. Variance in itself is not a problem. Differences in regulatory approaches can sometimes be the reflection of different circumstances, but there are also instances where the variance does not reflect differences in national specificities or preferences and where the design of the rules could be improved.

To get a better perspective on how restrictive the regulatory framework for a specified profession in a specific country is, we developed the so-called ‘restrictiveness indicator’. This allows us to measure the accumulated burden of different regulatory requirements for some important professional services sectors. It is based on a solid analysis of regulation in place in all Member States. It refines the parameters of the well known and widely used OECD PMR indicator.

Of course, this indicator is only intended to measure the restrictiveness of professional regulation and, as is pointed out in the report, this indicator is not intended to assess whether a restriction can be justified because it pursues a legitimate public interest in a proportionate manner. This is a separate exercise which the Member States have to do in line with the Treaty, but it is still helpful in indicating where Member State regulation is especially restrictive and where they have an interest in examining that regulation more deeply.

Differences in the level of restrictiveness may not be problematic in and of themselves, but they do indicate that other countries might have found other less restrictive ways forward. This could serve as an inspiration.

In order to assist the Member States with the removal of specific unjustified restrictions and to identify possibilities for improving the regulatory environment, we have put forward reform recommendations for seven professional services sectors. They are based on the restrictiveness indicator combined with a qualitative assessment. They target those instances where regulation is found to be particularly restrictive.

These reform recommendations are also important in the context of the European Semester exercise, which has addressed the issue of regulation of professions in several instances. While the indicator may not tell the whole story as it is referred to in the report, this does not mean that the rest of this story should not be based on strong evidence. Indeed, the Professional Qualifications Directive reinforced the obligation for Member States to ensure that the restrictions they impose are truly justified and demonstrably proportionate.

Based on the experience with the mutual evaluation exercise, it became clear that Member States may have difficulties in conducting such a proportionality assessment. Also in some cases the readiness to revisit existing regulations seemed limited. The uneven scrutiny of regulation of professions called for a coherent legal framework, so we put forward a proposal for an ex ante proportionality test for new regulations on which trilogues will start at the end of this month. It fully respects Member States’ responsibility for the regulatory decisions they take. It does not impose an obligation of result, it simply proposes a common EU-wide framework to conduct a genuine proportionality assessment before a new or amended regulation is proposed.

Finally, these two policy initiatives will complement and strengthen the Commission’s enforcement policy rather than replace it. In this context we take due note of Parliament’s call for infringement proceedings to address discriminatory, unjustified and disproportionate regulation. We stand ready to act to address the issue.

We count on the sustained support of honourable Members to keep the reform of professional services high on the political agenda. It is only with their active commitment that we will be able to unleash the potential of this important sector for the benefit of our citizens.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Andreas Schwab, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Zunächst einmal möchte ich dem Kollegen Danti und allen Schattenberichterstattern für die hervorragende Zusammenarbeit bei diesem sehr sensiblen Thema danken. Ich glaube, dass wir mit dem Bericht, über den heute diskutiert und abgestimmt wird, eine gute Grundlage zum Einstieg in das sogenannte Dienstleistungspaket gefunden haben. Herr Kommissar Vella, ich freue mich, dass Sie heute Morgen da sind. Ich bin mir sicher, dass Frau Kommissarin Bieńkowska dann auch selbst da sein wird, wenn wir das Dienstleistungspaket hier beraten werden.

Die wesentlichen Prinzipien, die den europäischen Gesetzgeber, aber auch die Kommission, bei der Regulierung von Dienstleistungsberufen leiten sollten, bedürfen großer Sensibilität, weil es natürlich hinsichtlich der Selbstverwaltung der Berufe eine hohe Bereitschaft der Beteiligten gibt, sich selbst Regeln zu geben, die häufig relativ weit von dem weg sind, was im europäischen Kontext diskutiert wird. Deswegen würde ich auch von vornherein die Europäische Kommission darum bitten, mit Geschicklichkeit, mit Flexibilität und Sensibilität bei den zuständigen Beteiligten bei den Berufen aufzutreten, um nicht unnötig Porzellan zu zerschlagen, weil grundsätzlich bereits die Bereitschaft und der Wille da sind, Europarechtskonformität auch in der Berufsregulierung, bei der Selbstverwaltung der freien Berufe beispielsweise oder auch beim Handwerk, hinzubekommen, was in der Praxis allerdings nicht immer ganz einfach ist. Deswegen hat uns hier bei diesem Bericht zum Einstieg ins Dienstleistungspaket der Gedanke geleitet, dass sinnvolle Regulierung auch Wettbewerbsanreize setzen kann. Ich bin dankbar dafür, dass die Kommission und auch das Parlament sich vom Prinzip, dass Regulierung per se ein Fehler ist, verabschiedet haben. Wir müssen insofern einfach auf sinnvolle Regulierung setzen. Ich glaube auch, dass, wenn die Mitgliedstaaten und die Berufsorganisationen eng zusammenarbeiten, Berufsregulierung kein Markthindernis sein muss, sondern wir es eben schaffen müssen – leider muss man dafür viel Geduld mitbringen, weil die Dinge sich nur langsam entwickeln –, und dass der Binnenmarkt eher gelingen kann, wenn wir das entsprechend zusammen hinbekommen.

Drittens – Herr Kommissar Vella, darauf haben Sie hingewiesen: Am Ende wird die Kommission nicht umhinkommen, im Einzelfall eben Vertragsverletzungsverfahren einzuleiten, weil wir nicht über alle Berufe Regeln erlassen können, nur weil sich ganz wenige gegen die Regeln des europäischen Binnenmarkts gestellt haben. Ich weiß, dass es für die Kommission unangenehm ist, aber diese Aufgabe kommt Ihnen nach den Verträgen eben zu.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Virginie Rozière, au nom du groupe S&D. – Madame la Présidente, permettez-moi tout d’abord de remercier mon collègue Nicola  Danti et de saluer son travail, son rapport qui, je l’espère, rassemblera une large majorité.

Cette large majorité est rassemblée parce que, justement, on est dans une logique d’équilibre et de compromis, qui prend en compte tous nos grands principes, mais qui essaie aussi de s’ancrer dans la réalité de l’activité économique et la réalité des consommateurs, dans la totalité de l’espace européen.

Cela n’est pas un mince exploit dans un contexte où nous avons affaire à un climat plus global, autour du paquet sur les services, que je trouve particulièrement emblématique de la déconnexion d’un certain nombre des propositions qui peuvent être faites ici avec la réalité des entreprises, des PME et des consommateurs.

En effet, on nous parle toujours de barrières injustifiées, d’obstacles réglementaires, mais il serait tout de même bon de rappeler qu’une régulation, une réglementation, une obligation, répondent – si elles existent encore et si la Commission a fait correctement son travail – à des objectifs d’intérêt général, que ces réglementations sont là pour préserver la santé et la sécurité des consommateurs, la sécurité alimentaire et la protection de l’environnement.

Ce ne sont pas de minces objectifs et ils méritent que l’on s’y attache avec attention avant de vouloir obligatoirement les remettre en question.

C’est bien ce que souligne le rapport de Nicola Danti, cette nécessité d’équilibre. En cela, je regrette que nos collègues libéraux, encore une fois, fassent preuve de ce grand dogmatisme dérégulatoire en supprimant purement et simplement la mention de ces objectifs d’intérêt général, qui doivent être à la base de toute réglementation.

J’espère que cet amendement ne passera pas. Je voudrais remercier encore une fois Nicola pour son excellent travail et je souhaite qu’il recueille, tout à l’heure, une grande majorité.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Richard Sulík, za skupinu ECR. – Vážená pani predsedajúca, aktuálny problém v oblasti regulovaných povolaní úzko súvisí s problematikou protekcionizmu a narúšania jednotného trhu pracovných síl, o ktorom na pôde nášho výboru v posledných mesiacoch veľa diskutujeme. Na jednej strane máme právo členských štátov regulovať tie povolania, kde si to podľa nich vyžaduje verejný záujem. Na druhej strane máme právo pracovníkov vykonávať svoje povolanie v ktoromkoľvek členskom štáte. Považujem preto za kľúčové, aby národná regulácia povolaní vždy zodpovedala princípom nediskriminácie a proporcionality. A aby členský štát jasne definoval verejný záujem, ktorý reguláciou sleduje. Som rád, že tieto princípy sú viackrát prízvukované aj v predloženej správe. Ako totiž vyplýva z oznámenia Komisie, na ktoré správa reaguje, členské štáty kladú aj také regulačné podmienky, kde by sme verejný záujem hľadali márne. Ľahko by sme však vedeli identifikovať protekcionistický záujem ochrany vlastného regulovaného trhu pred konkurenciou. Chcem preto týmto vyzvať aj Komisiu, aby ako strážkyňa zmlúv dodržiavanie princípu nediskriminácie a proporcionality od členských krajín aktívne vymáhala. Základné pravidlá má Európska únia stanovené vo svojich zmluvách v zásade dobre, problémom však je, že nie sú dodržiavané, aj preto, že ich Komisia nedostatočne od členských štátov vymáha. Tak ako povedal aj kolega Schwab, tu budú potrebné infrindžmenty. Na záver, dovoľte mi poďakovať sa za spoluprácu pánovi Dantimu a najmä pánovi Schwabovi.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jasenko Selimovic, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I would like to start by congratulating Mr Danti for excellent work that has been done with the great care for detail and in a very good atmosphere. I believe that today we are taking a step towards achieving our vision of a functioning single market for services, of which professional services are of course a cornerstone. Around 50 million people in Europe are working in these services, so they are extremely important.

Too often, regulation in the Member States still operates against this goal, while the evidence shows us that the EU countries that have fewer obstacles to cross-border competition are actually performing much better than the Member States where the restrictions are still in place. We believe that the regulation, at European and national level, of professional services should be proportionate, justified and non-discriminatory. Member States should identify and remove the unjustified regulatory barriers in the interests of the citizens to enable them to benefit from the new professional opportunities. If I made an effort to become a lawyer, a doctor, an architect, whatever, then it’s reasonable to expect to be able to exercise that profession, even outside the walls of my city. We believe that this professionality should not be optional, but impossible to avoid, and that is why that we need transparency and legal clarity. This is the reason I tabled amendment on behalf of my group about it. We have to provide a clear legal reference for Member States, in line with the pivotal principles of non-discrimination and proportionality. But even with this remark, I believe that we are today a bit closer to our vision of a functioning single market. I am very happy about this.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jiří Maštálka, za skupinu GUE/NGL. – Nejdříve bych chtěl poděkovat panu zpravodaji za odvedený kus práce na zprávě. Ve zprávě se objevují některé pozitivní elementy, jako např. uznání významu regulovaných profesí pro sektor služeb či inovací.

Mám ale problém se základním principem předkládaného předpisu. Domnívám se totiž, že stanovená povinnost členských států oznamovat Komisi, jaké změny provedly v rámci regulovaných profesí ve své vnitrostátní úpravě, je v přímém rozporu s principem subsidiarity a proporcionality. Každá země přece musí být sama schopna určit, jaké předpoklady a jakou kvalifikaci je nutno pro výkon konkrétního povolání splnit. Regulace určitých povolání je nutná pro zajištění ochrany veřejného zajmu, vysoké ochrany spotřebitelů a vysoké kvality služeb.

Podporuji sice systém vzájemného uznávání diplomů a kvalifikací, ale domnívám se, že úprava podmínek pro výkon regulovaných profesí musí zůstat plně v kompetenci členských států. Nechci, aby Komise českým uchazečům o post advokáta diktovala délku koncipientské praxe nebo předpisovala potřebu vzdělání pro české mediky apod. Svojí politické frakci doporučím, aby se při hlasování o návrhu zdržela.

(Řečník souhlasil s tím, že odpoví na otázku položenou zvednutím modré karty (čl. 162 odst. 8 jednacího řádu).)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Richard Sulík (ECR), otázka položená zdvihnutím modrej karty. – Ďakujem pekne. Pán Maštálka, vo viacerých veciach sa dá s vami rozhodne súhlasiť. Sú to práveže veci na diskusiu a trochu ma teda mrzí, že sa chcete pri tomto zdržať, lebo mal som pocit, že práve tu panuje veľmi široká zhoda. A možnože veľa vecí by sme si vedeli vydiskutovať. A moja otázka je, že prečo ste sa nezúčastnili na žiadnom alebo v podstate žiadnom rokovaní, kde sme si toto mohli práve v kľude vydiskutovať? (prerušené pani predsedajúcou a pokračovanie v anglickom jazyku)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL), odpověď na otázku položenou zvednutím modré karty. – Možná jsem se nezúčastnil jednání, na kterých jste si mě nevšiml, ale své návrhy jsem podával tak, jak je to zvykem. Takže to není žádné překvapení, že dávám takové doporučení své frakci, a absolvoval jsem mnoho jednání i uvnitř frakce.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bronis Ropė, Verts/ALE frakcijos vardu. – Prisidedu prie sveikinimo pranešėjui, iš tikrųjų, už gerai atliktą darbą ir manau, kad Europos piliečių teisė įsidarbinti bet kurioje valstybėje narėje – viena iš keturių pamatinių Europos Sąjungos laisvių. Profesionalų judėjimo laisvė bendroje rinkoje yra praktinis europinio socialinio ir ekonominio modelio veikimo pavyzdys. Žinoma, profesinės veiklos reguliavimas yra esminė sąlyga, norint užtikrinti teikiamų viešųjų paslaugų kokybę ir apsaugoti viešąjį interesą, todėl švietimo kokybė turi būti labai svarbus visų valstybių narių prioritetas. Kaip teisingai pažymėjo pranešėjas, direktyvos įgyvendinimo patirtis nėra vienareikšmiškai džiuginanti. Turime daug pavyzdžių, kai kitoje valstybėje narėje norintys įsidarbinti profesionalai susiduria su logiškai nepaaiškinamomis kliūtimis: administraciniais reikalavimais, ilgomis procedūromis ar tiesiog atviru kliudymu gauti reikiamą informaciją. Mes, Žaliųjų frakcija, palaikėme Komisijos pasiūlytą naujų profesinių reikalavimų proporcingumo testą. Jis turėjo tapti gera priemone išspręsti piliečiams kylančias problemas.

Deja, tenka apgailestauti, kad valstybės narės ne visuomet gali pasigirti taikančios skaidrius profesinius reikalavimus. Tą gali patvirtinti daugybė užsienyje dirbančių asmenų. Šiuo metu svarstomas dokumentas yra puiki proga priminti valstybėms narėms apie jų įsipareigojimą visiems Europos piliečiams sudaryti sąlygas įsidarbinti pagal turimą kvalifikaciją. Noriu atkreipti dėmesį, jog gero valdymo principas reikalauja visų pirma spręsti esamo reguliavimo įgyvendinimo spragas, tuo labiau, kad problemos kyla daugiausiai dėl direktyvos nuostatų įgyvendinimo srities, kurios priežiūra Komisija turi užsiimti savo kasdieninėje veikloje, todėl reikia pasveikinti ką tik išsakytas Komisijos ambicijas šalinti šias spragas.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  John Stuart Agnew, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Madam President, good morning to you and the 25 brave Members prepared to turn up this morning. Mairead, if you are able to pronounce the name of the next speaker on the list to their satisfaction, I think I’ll buy you a drink.

This report calls for yet more unnecessary interference in the field of professional services. Therefore it goes without saying that I cannot support this initiative. This is yet another area where the Commission has pushed forward with their political agenda and has introduced more harmonisation. We would not be here talking about this this morning if there was a great appetite for such actions around Europe.

The fact that six Member States did not submit their national action plans within the deadline given by the Commission speaks for itself. Such statistics do not lead me to believe that a harmonised approach to this subject is the correct approach or that it is even welcome.

The aim of opening up professions in order to create more jobs and improve the economy is honourable. Very few people would disagree with this. However, I believe that Member States are more than capable of carrying this out themselves, if and when it is necessary. It is certainly not for the Commission to become involved with.

Member States should be free to act as they wish, as will benefit their citizens, as they are in the best position to say what works best for their citizens and their economies. The United Kingdom already has a strong history of trustworthy professionals, and we certainly do not need the European Union’s interference in order to continue this proud tradition.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – Madam Troszczynski, for two minutes. Mr Agnew, you are in remarkably good form this morning. I am happy to see that, it brightens up the Chamber; not something we normally see from that side of the House, if I may boldly say.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mylène Troszczynski, au nom du groupe ENF. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, mes chers collègues, ce texte me préoccupe à plusieurs titres:

premièrement, l’élargissement continu des pouvoirs de coercition de la Commission européenne au détriment des États membres. On se demande bien où elle compte s’arrêter et si nous-mêmes, députés élus, saurons un jour l’arrêter;

deuxièmement, le nouvel indicateur de restrictivité, véritable outil dématérialisé et technocratique qui constituera à l’avenir – soyez-en convaincus – un argument essentiel en faveur de l’imposition de sanctions par la Commission, en dépit de toutes les promesses que l’on peut vous faire aujourd’hui;

troisièmement, l’élargissement des reconnaissances professionnelles qui, pourtant, pourrait être positif au cas par cas, mais qui est en fait terriblement déstabilisant à l’échelle envisagée, que ce soit d’un point de vue économique, social ou culturel;

quatrièmement, le caractère systématiquement présenté comme délictuel de toute idée de préférence nationale, même à l’égard de ces professions réglementées, qui sont pourtant qualifiées, par le rapporteur lui-même, de stratégiques pour l’équilibre général des États membres;

pour finir, le saccage des professions réglementées est très largement entamé. Les apprentis sorciers technocrates de Bruxelles, inventeurs d’indices en tout genre, devraient se concentrer sur leur bilan calamiteux et se rendre compte de l’inadaptation de ces mesures à certains États membres qui ont souvent beaucoup plus à perdre qu’à gagner.

J’ajouterai à l’endroit des députés qui adoubent ces politiques qu’ils feraient mieux de se préoccuper davantage d’assurer l’intérêt général plutôt que de s’abandonner à la dérive fédéraliste qui nous rapproche chaque jour de la côte et d’un naufrage collectif.

Le groupe ENL, que je représente ce matin, s’opposera lors du vote à l’adoption de ce rapport, pour des raisons de bon sens évident.

(L’oratrice accepte de répondre à une question «carton bleu» (article 162, paragraphe 8, du règlement))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D), question "carton bleu". – Chère collègue, il semble qu’encore une fois, vous ne représentez pas l’Europe des nations, mais l’Europe nationaliste. Vous savez, ce que vous avez dit sur les modèles appliqués par chaque pays membre sur ce sujet – quelle est votre opinion sur les modèles que tous les pays membres de l’Union européenne peuvent appliquer sur le sujet dont nous débattons ce matin?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mylène Troszczynski (ENF), réponse "carton bleu". – Écoutez, chaque pays a ses propres règles, ses propres normes et réagit en fonction de ses propres intérêts et du coup, en général, quand on parle de normalisation ou d’harmonisation dans cet hémicycle, c’est souvent une harmonisation et un nivellement par le bas. Donc, je pense que chaque État membre est à même de légiférer en fonction de ses intérêts propres et ce sera toujours mon objectif et, en tout cas, mon axe de défense dans cet hémicycle.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Diane James (NI). – Madam President, these efforts by the European Union to harmonise professional qualifications are the next step towards the creation of a federal superstate, but when you have got disastrous youth unemployment figures, such as in Greece and Italy, what else can you do but try and liberalise the market and give people, young people, the opportunity to move to where the jobs are?

Worldwide university rankings consistently put the United Kingdom in the top tier. No other countries, other than Germany and Sweden, come anywhere near, and there is a very big distance between them. But no one seems to have considered in the European Union, in the Commission, the threat posed by 400 fake universities in China and 300 in India, all of them issuing degrees and other qualifications which are creating real distortions and real threats in the market.

Under the freedom of movement pillar, this particular directive and this proposal are going to create a brand new opportunity for European-based criminal gangs, and I can see some real problems coming down the line, and I would like to see them addressed.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – Mr Szejnfeld, exceptionally you have speaking time now, but you did want to ask a question of Ms James. Because we are all in great humour this morning in the Chamber I am going to allow you to ask your question before you speak. Ms James, if you accept of course.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Diane James (NI). – Madam President, no, there is no point. I do not wish to give another MEP unneeded and unnecessary speaking time.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – Mr Szejnfeld, there’s your answer, but perhaps you could incorporate the comments into your speech, which is now for one-and-a-half minutes.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Adam Szejnfeld (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Trudno, będę musiał zrezygnować z części swojego czasu, po to żeby jednak ustosunkować się do wystąpienia pani James. Mianowicie jestem zdumiony tezą, że zamykanie krajów, zamykanie rynków, zamykanie zawodów – to jest otwieranie się na młodych ludzi, to jest dawanie im nowej szansy. No, jest właśnie odwrotnie, dlatego zdecydowanie popieram to dossier, na temat którego dzisiaj rozmawiamy.

Temat jest bardzo ważny: rynek usług generuje w Unii Europejskiej 71 % PKB, 68 % miejsc pracy. To pokazuje, jaka to jest potęga, właściwie to jest filar, fundament wspólnego rynku. Ale na tym rynku usług nie dzieje się dobrze właśnie ze względu na regulacje dotyczące zawodów regulowanych. Dość tylko powiedzieć, że minęły lata, a dyrektywa 2005/36/WE do dzisiaj przez wiele krajów nie jest realizowana, w tym 6 krajów nie przedstawiło w ogóle swoich krajowych planów działania.

Świadczą o tym także liczne regulacje. To są, proszę Państwa, w skali Unii Europejskiej dziesiątki tysięcy przepisów, dziesiątki tysięcy przepisów. Sam fakt, że 1200 organów krajowych zajmuje się tym tematem, pokazuje, jak to jest wszystko zagmatwane i skomplikowane. 5500 zawodów w Europie jest regulowanych. Dlatego popieram wszystkie te postulaty i wnioski kierowane do Komisji Europejskiej i do organów Unii Europejskiej, by wprowadzić deregulację zawodów w Unii Europejskiej, harmonizację i kontrolę działalności państw w tym zakresie.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Catherine Stihler (S&D). – Madam President I wasn’t going to start by making a comment about one of the previous speakers but I think I will. I am absolutely forced to. The individual who just spoke – Ms James, a former leader of UKIP – talking about her interest in higher education and young people in my country beggars belief. Young people in my country are now going to be denied access to working in another EU country. And as for her interest in higher education, well … Higher education is about to lose money in terms of our research budgets, so I am sorry Madam President but I had to say something against that speaker.

Mr Danti’s report, however, is something to be welcomed. Too many people in our European Union today are denied the basic right to use their professional qualification in another Member State. It is disgraceful that, in 2018, those people cannot do something that is part of their fundamental rights. Having this debate today is therefore absolutely pivotal, so that people will be able to realise the potential that is there, so that Europeans’ talent is realised, and so that we can be successful in creating the knowledge economy that we all want to see.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Daniel Dalton (ECR). – Madam President, I too would like to thank Mr Danti for his report because it is clear we need more political commitment to remove barriers to services. This Parliament has said that repeatedly, including in the report I did on non-tariff barriers in 2016. We often hear that restriction is essential, but what that really means is we want to stop other Europeans from offering services. It is discriminatory and it is against the principles of the treaties.

Mutual recognition is at the heart of many aspects of the single market: it is what makes the single market unique. Yet it is under threat more than anywhere in professional services. From hairdressers to ski instructors, we’re all aware of, frankly, ridiculous examples of protectionism that are dressed up as protecting the public. They do no such thing. Consumers pay more and get worse services, Europeans are denied employment opportunities, new businesses never develop, and as a continent we struggle to innovate. We need more honest effort to reduce barriers in professional services which are the biggest global growth area, and we need to stop discriminating against EU citizens.

Now the UK may not be part of this in the future, but Europe still needs a true internal market in services to thrive.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Dita Charanzová (ALDE). – Madam President, 71% of European GDP and 68% of total employment come from services. Regulated professionals account for 22% of all workers. With such numbers, it is shocking and unacceptable that, in many Member States, the free movement of services is still not respected and promoted. It is equally shocking that Member States, instead of moving towards harmonised regulations on professionals, continue to invent new national barriers to prevent free movement and the equal treatment of all EU citizens.

I am here to tell you that a Czech professional is just as good as a German, French or any other professional. We must deregulate where restrictions are unjustified and harmonise where they are. We cannot continue to allow economic protectionism within the single market.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Paloma López Bermejo (GUE/NGL). – Señora presidenta, el profundo impacto que tiene la manera en que están reguladas las profesiones en la economía de la Unión Europea no es razón suficiente para que los Estados miembros pierdan el control de lo que es una competencia exclusiva de cada uno de ellos.

Este debate no es nuevo, y merece la pena volver a decir que la Comisión Europea no debe seguir intentando apropiarse de dichas competencias. Ya lo vimos con el test de proporcionalidad, cuando la propuesta hecha por la Comisión Europea fue rechazada por la Comisión de Empleo. La proporcionalidad de las regulaciones en las profesiones no puede ser revisada de antemano por la Comisión. Para eso existe el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, que lo hace caso por caso en situaciones concretas y no con carácter general.

Debemos quitarnos de la cabeza que la regulación de las profesiones es un asunto económico, de mercado. Es necesario que dichas normas sean proporcionadas y no discriminatorias, pero son los Estados miembros y el Tribunal de Justicia quienes tienen que velar por que así sea.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Dominique Bilde (ENF). – Madame la Présidente, en introduisant un contrôle de proportionnalité sur les professions réglementées, la Commission commet une erreur sur le fond et sur le droit.

Sur le fond, d’abord, parce que son parti pris idéologique n’est sous-tendu par aucune analyse économique crédible. De fait, les vagues de déréglementation successives se sont systématiquement soldées par une dégradation du service et de l’emploi. Les professions réglementées connaîtront le même sort, alors que certaines, comme dans le domaine du droit, subissent déjà une détérioration considérable de leurs conditions d’exercice.

Sur le droit, ensuite, parce que ces réglementations relèvent de la compétence des États membres, en vertu aussi bien de la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne que du traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne. Les États membres ont donc d’autant moins à s’en justifier que ces professions répondent à des missions d’intérêt général requérant un haut niveau de qualification.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, common interests such as the protection of the environment, consumer protection and public health are safeguarded by rules and regulations for professions, demanding specific professional qualifications to practice an activity. However, because these rules are not harmonised at EU level, their standards vary between Member States. The role played by the professions is a vital component of the European economy, upholding our common objectives. Unfortunately, as Commissioner Vella pointed out, this area is underperforming.

The Professional Qualifications Directive is important as it upholds the fundamental EU right to the free movement of labour by enabling the free movement of professionals. It sets out the rules for automatic recognition for a number of professions, based on harmonised minimum training requirements, a general system for the recognition of professional qualifications, a system for the automatic recognition of professional experience, and a system of cross-border provision of services in the context of regulated professions.

In 2013, we introduced Article 59 of this Directive, which provides for transparency and a mutual evaluation exercise for all regulated professions in Member States, whether they are regulated on the basis of national rules or are harmonised at EU level. Unfortunately, not all the provisions of Article 59 have yet been fully implemented by Member States, even after the passing of the deadline. This is something that needs to be rectified because if we, as individual politicians, miss deadlines, we will probably be named and shamed, and possibly fined and penalised, yet some of these Member States can get away with applying different rules to us.

I think it is time for action. This is a good proposal by Mr Danti and Commissioner Vella.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D). – Arvoisa puhemies, ei ole todellakaan helppo asia yhdistää kansalliset käytännöt ja intressit tähän tärkeään eurooppalaiseen ideaan, jossa keskeistä on osaaminen ja osaamisen tason nostaminen, ihmisten liikkuminen, sisämarkkinoiden toimivuus ja näistä kaikista asioista syntyvä kilpailukyky. Kilpailukyky syntyy nimenomaan osaamisen korkeasta tasosta ja kansalaisten liikkuvuudesta. Tässä suhteessa esittelijä Danti on onnistunut aikaansaamaan erittäin tasapainoisen mietinnön.

On todellakin suoraan sanoen häpeällistä ja anteeksiantamatonta, että jäsenvaltiot eivät ole vielä toteuttaneet ammatillista laatudirektiiviä ja siksi on erittäin tärkeää, että nyt toteuttamisessa noudatetaan mahdollisimman paljon avoimuutta ja yritetään aikaansaada vertailukelpoisuutta ja yhteistä tavoitetta nimenomaan sen takia, että osaamisen tasoon perustuva eurooppalainen kilpailukyky ja ihmisten oikeudet kasvavat.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ulrike Trebesius (ECR). – Frau Präsidentin! Die Reform der freiberuflichen Dienstleistungen macht im Sinne der EU-Verträge einen guten Eindruck. Die Richtlinie ist insgesamt ausgewogen und wird die Wirtschaft der Europäischen Union stärken. Von daher kann und werde ich ihr zustimmen. Ich möchte auf ein anderes Problem in diesem Zusammenhang aufmerksam machen: Die innereuropäische Migration infolge von EU—Osterweiterung und Eurokrise ist weit größer als ursprünglich angenommen. Besonders der Brexit war ein deutlicher Warnruf für die EU. Nach dem Brexit werden in den nächsten Jahren verstärkt Migrationsströme in den bereits stark durch Migration betroffenen Ballungszentren Westeuropas – auch meine Stadt ist betroffen – eintreffen. Bereits in den letzten Jahren gehen durch Migration, Binnenmigration und ungelöste Eurokrise die Immobilienpreise und Mieten durch die Decke. Diese Entwicklung wird sich voraussichtlich noch verstärken, auch durch gut gemeinte Berichte wie den hier vorliegenden.

In anderen Berichten, wie zum Beispiel der Entsenderichtlinie, finden wir heute bereits versteckte protektionistische Maßnahmen. Zwar will keiner der sogenannten Proeuropäer zugeben, dass die Migration – also die europäische Binnenmigration – eben auch Probleme mit sich bringt, aber an der Unterstützung für protektionistische Maßnahmen ist genau dies zu erkennen. Wir müssen uns hier einfach ehrlich damit auseinandersetzen.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Uznávání odborných kvalifikací je jednou z cest, jak v rámci EU podporovat mobilitu a konkurenceschopnost. Revize směrnice, která proběhla v roce 2013, se vydala správným směrem. K odbourávání neopodstatněných překážek přispívá také povinnost členských států notifikovat Komisi přehled svých regulovaných profesí i možnost států vzájemně vyhodnocovat národní požadavky. V rámci odbourávání překážek je důležité i to, aby mezi sebou byly profese v jednotlivých státech snáze porovnatelné. K tomu by přispělo zlepšení databáze všech regulovaných profesí. Přínosná je i povinnost státu před přijetím nové regulace posoudit proporcionalitu zaváděných požadavků. Toto posouzení však bývá v členských státech prováděno odlišně. Abychom skutečně odstraňovali nepřiměřené požadavky a zabraňovali protekcionismu, je potřeba ve všech státech zajistit stejnou praxi.

Proto podporuji návrh směrnice, která by zavedla jednotný rámec pro posuzování přiměřenosti národních požadavků. Společný rámec by měl napomoci tomu, aby připravované regulace nebyly pouhou formalitou. Současně by se tím posílila důvěra mezi členskými státy. Také bych uvítala, aby profesní průkaz byl rozšířen i nad rámec současných 5 profesí, pro které se uplatňuje, abychom drželi krok s rozvojem digitálních technologií a odstraňovali administrativní překážky.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Christel Schaldemose (S&D). – Fru formand! Tak til hr. Danti for at have lavet en rigtig god og afbalanceret betænkning. EU’s indre marked med fri bevægelig for både varer og personer er uden tvivl et gode. Det er værdifuldt, og det har skabt vækst og udvikling. Det gælder også for servicesektoren, hvor forbrugerne og virksomhederne nyder rigtig godt af, at vi har fjernet en lang række unødvendige barrierer. Men når det kommer til at opstille krav for f.eks., hvilke kvalifikationer folk skal have for at udføre et arbejde, så mener vi socialdemokrater, at det ikke er hensynet til det total frie marked, der skal stå forrest. Vi mener, det indre marked fungerer allerbedst, når vi regulerer markedskræfterne. Det gælder også for de erhverv, der er reguleret ved lov.

Vi socialdemokrater ønsker ikke bare regulering for reguleringens skyld, begrænsninger for begrænsningens skyld. Vi mener, det er helt på sin plads, at hensynet til patienten på sygehuset, forbrugeren i hverdagen og vores alle sammens natur får lov til at få forrang. Til gengæld bakker så vi helhjertet op om, at når der bliver lavet regulering, også i medlemsstaterne, så skal der være fuld gennemsigtighed. Det skal være tydeligt for enhver, hvilke krav det er, vi stiller til hinanden. Vi bakker derfor også op om behovet for at lave nationale handleplaner. Det er dog helt centralt for os socialdemokrater, at dem, der møder reguleringen i deres hverdag, også inddrages i arbejdet. Det gælder i særdeleshed de faglige organisationer. Jeg vil gerne sige stor tak til hr. Danti for at sikre, at lige præcis disse hensyn er medtaget i betænkningen, så vi kan opnå balance og få et godt og velfungerende indre marked.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sofia Ribeiro (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, a regulamentação das qualificações profissionais reforça o mercado único e a mobilidade laboral e, portanto, reforça a efetiva União Europeia.

É preciso recordar que o processo de Bolonha permitiu a convergência ao nível das qualificações académicas, a par do quadro europeu de qualificações, o que permite, a título de exemplo, que um jovem português, licenciado, veja reconhecida a sua licenciatura num outro qualquer Estado-Membro europeu. Mas esta convergência está incompleta.

O problema maior reside nas profissões especializadas que exigem um reconhecimento pelas ordens profissionais, e é por isso que defendo que se crie um quadro europeu de qualificações profissionais que harmonize os requisitos da atividade laboral. Defendo também, Senhor Comissário, que reforcemos, quando existam, e que criemos, nos casos inexistentes, as federações europeias das ordens profissionais, o que permita, também a título de exemplo, que um jovem português que se inscreva na Ordem dos Psicólogos em Portugal, veja automaticamente reconhecida essa capacidade e que também esteja automaticamente reconhecido pela Ordem dos Psicólogos, por exemplo, no Reino Unido, permitindo uma efetiva mobilidade laboral também nas profissões especializadas.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D). – Pokud chceme i nadále odbourávat překážky na vnitřním trhu, jednou z oblastí musí být i profesní mobilita. Společný postup na unijní úrovni by měl odstraňovat nepřiměřené překážky a zároveň garantovat vysokou kvalitu poskytovaných služeb. Profesní regulace je pro ochranu veřejného zájmu, bezpečnost pacientů a ochranu spotřebitelů důležitým nástrojem. Souhlasím, že zásadní je transparentnost a srovnatelnost kvalifikací pro regulovaná povolání a že hlavním měřítkem srovnávání by měla být kvalita služeb, nikoliv prostá čísla. Do konzultací o profesní regulaci by měly být více zapojeny všechny zúčastněné strany, v čele se sociálními partnery. Jen tak je možné posílit důvěru, která je pro fungování vnitřního trhu naprosto klíčová.

Vedle vzdělávání a rozvoje dovedností ovšem mysleme i na to, jak odborníkům zajistit odpovídající podmínky pro výkon jejich profese v rámci pracovní mobility i bez ní, tedy na domácím pracovním trhu.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, reglementarea privind serviciile și calificările profesionale este importantă pentru piața internă. Eu sunt surprinsă de poziția unor colegi care arată că, de fapt, ar bloca. Din contră – libera circulație a cetățenilor și mai ales a tinerilor care se pregătesc în anumite domenii ale serviciilor, să poată să profeseze în oricare stat membru – de fapt, asta înseamnă că suntem o Uniune Europeană și o piață internă, asta înseamnă.

Eu îl felicit pe colegul meu Danti pentru raport, pentru echilibru, foarte multe amendamente bune. Mulțumesc și domnului comisar. Și cred că este important să înțelegem că implementarea eficace și eficientă a acestui raport duce, pe de o parte, la competitivitate, servicii mai bune, prețuri mai mici și calitatea serviciilor mai bună pentru consumatori. Și mai cred foarte mult că, din contră, dacă votăm astăzi această reglementare și o și implementăm, aceasta va duce la eliminarea discriminării nejustificate și disproporționate, mai ales pentru tinerii profesioniști. Susțin raportul și sper să fie votat.

 
  
 

Catch-the-eye procedure

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Milan Zver (PPE). – Hvala za besedo, spoštovana gospa predsedujoča, spoštovani gospod komisar. Tudi jaz čestitam kolegu Dantiju za dobro opravljeno delo. To je zelo občutljiva tematika, kot vemo. Na področju izobraževanja in usposabljanja nimamo veliko direktiv, to je ena izmed redkih, ki poskuša nekako standardizirati poklicne standarde po celi Evropi.

V državah članicah imamo zelo različne sisteme. Slišali smo prej gospoda Schwaba, ki pravi, da v Nemčiji imajo svoj tradicionalni sistem, kjer poklicna združenja določajo poklicne standarde in podobno. Imamo nekatere članice, kjer državni uradniki urejajo tovrstne naloge.

Torej, vsekakor pa potrebujemo na ravni Evropske unije bolj primerljiv sistem. Leta 2008 smo sprejeli evropski kvalifikacijski okvir, ki se še premalo implementira v državah članicah, in podobno. Vendar je treba biti vseeno tukaj zelo pozoren, gre za suverene politike nacionalnih držav, potrebno je najti ravnovesje med nacionalno suverenostjo in pa regulacijo s strani Evropske unije.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D). – Madam President, I welcome this very important report which highlights that high-quality professional services and an effective regulatory environment are of utmost importance for preserving the EU’s economic, social and cultural model and for boosting the competitiveness of the European Union.

I would like to recall that regulated professions, which represent up to 22% of the labour force in the EU and cover many crucial sectors, constitute a significant element in the economy of the Member States, and rules on regulated professions are usually imposed to ensure the protection of general interest objectives such as public health, consumer protection or public security. Indeed in many cases the regulation is justified on the above-mentioned grounds.

However for a regulation to be fair for professionals and to ensure mobility within the European Union, the latter has to fully respect the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality, and the Member States must be transparent about the rules they put forward.

I conclude by stressing that irrespective of the model applied by each country, where restrictions may be removed or be rendered more proportionate, these tasks should be carried out for the benefit of European citizens.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Karin Kadenbach (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Ein ganz klares Bekenntnis zum Binnenmarkt und zu den vier Freiheiten – das inkludiert natürlich den freien Dienstleistungsverkehr. Und trotzdem – daher ist diese Diskussion heute so wichtig – gibt es Bereiche, die der freien Marktwirtschaft nicht einfach unterliegen dürfen. Das ist für mich der gesamte Bereich der Daseinsvorsorge und im Speziellen der Gesundheitsfürsorge. Darum freuen mich die Wortmeldungen, die wir heute gehabt haben. Wir brauchen in gewissen Bereichen Reglementierungen, wir brauchen Harmonisierung, aber auch unter dem Aspekt des Konsumentenschutzes, der Transparenz und der Verhinderung der Wettbewerbsverzerrung.

Ich glaube, dass das vorliegende Papier ein gutes, ausgewogenes Papier ist, dem wir uns voll anschließen können. Aber ich möchte noch eine Bemerkung äußern: Wenn ich Angst davor habe, dass es hier zu innereuropäischen Migrationsströmen kommt, dann kann die Antwort darauf nicht sein, dass ich diesen freien Dienstleistungsverkehr unterbinde, sondern wir müssen uns die Wurzeln dieser innereuropäischen Migration anschauen und dürfen nicht in Bereichen der Strukturförderung oder der Kohäsionsförderung den Sparstift in dem Maße ansetzen, dass wir Leute aus den Regionen, in denen sie eigentlich gerne leben und arbeiten würden, vertreiben.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η οικονομική κρίση, η οποία εδώ και πολλά χρόνια μαστίζει την Ευρώπη, και κυρίως την Ελλάδα, έχει επηρεάσει σημαντικά την ομαλή άσκηση πολλών επαγγελμάτων. Μεγάλος αριθμός από αυτά έχουν εγκαταλειφθεί, κάποια άλλα βρίσκονται στα πρόθυρα της εξαφανίσεως, πολλοί εργαζόμενοι έχουν χάσει την εργασία τους και ειδικά οι νέοι επιστήμονες, όταν κατορθώσουν επιτέλους να βρουν εργασία, αυτή συνήθως δεν έχει καμία σχέση με το αντικείμενο της επιστήμης τους. Αυτή είναι μια κατάσταση που πρέπει να αντιμετωπιστεί και να βρεθεί λύση. Πρέπει οι νέοι να αποκτήσουν τα απαιτούμενα προσόντα για να ασκήσουν κάποια επαγγέλματα, κυρίως τα νομοθετικώς προστατευόμενα επαγγέλματα, πρέπει να αποκτήσουν την εμπειρία και τις δεξιότητες και όλα αυτά πρέπει να αποτελέσουν ευθύνη και αρμοδιότητα του κάθε κράτους. Διότι είναι το κράτος που γνωρίζει τα προβλήματα που αντιμετωπίζει και πώς πρέπει να τα επιλύσει. Στη συνέχεια, το κάθε κράτος, σε συνεργασία με τα υπόλοιπα κράτη μέλη και την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, θα διαμορφώσει ένα πλαίσιο το οποίο θα μπορεί στη συνέχεια να τεθεί σε εφαρμογή σε όλες τις χώρες της Ευρώπης.

 
  
 

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Karmenu Vella, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank the Members for this interesting debate. It is clear that we share the common aim of creating an effective legal environment so that we can ensure high—quality professional services.

The mutual evaluation exercise was an important first step, but it also showed that much work remains to be done. Analytical tools like the Restrictiveness Indicator can support us in this effort by pointing out possible instances of inadequate regulation or over-regulation. It is then for the Member States to examine the justification for these restrictions and to check whether there are alternative, less harmful measures. The proposed proportionality test will also be a key instrument for preventing the adoption of disproportionate professional rules.

The Commission thanks the House once again for your support for its policy initiative and looks forward to working with you to create competitive and high-quality professional services.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nicola Danti, relatore. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, in chiusura di questa discussione permettetemi intanto di ringraziare per la collaborazione tutti i relatori ombra di questa relazione e tutti coloro che sono intervenuti nella discussione di stamattina.

A conclusione di questa discussione, mi preme sottolineare una parola: equilibrio – è stato sottolineato da più interventi. Abbiamo a che fare con un mercato che molto spesso è stato forse il più chiuso di tutti i mercati europei, talvolta non solo a livello nazionale ma anche a livello locale. Il professionista spesso è stato individuato come colui che opera sul territorio, su una realtà locale, e abbiamo bisogno – e questo sono le direttive europee che lo chiedono, e il lavoro che stiamo facendo lo riaffermiamo in questa relazione – di ampliare la mobilità intraeuropea delle professioni, dare maggiori opportunità di mobilità intereuropea ai giovani, migliorare la qualità dei servizi, aumentare l'offerta all'interno dell'UE e la concorrenza. Ma allo stesso tempo abbiamo anche la necessità di far sì che le normative nazionali garantiscano la proporzionalità, siano proporzionali per l'accesso a queste professioni, a tutela dei cittadini, a tutela delle autorità pubbliche e a tutela dei consumatori.

Tuttavia a me preme, in questa fase finale, sottolineare un aspetto. Io credo, signora Presidente, signor Commissario e onorevoli colleghi, che la competizione non sarà tra i professionisti europei. Il mercato digitale sta aprendo al mondo il nostro mercato: ormai nel mondo si possono trovare online piattaforme che offrono servizi professionali da ogni parte del mondo, le barriere sono state abbattute. E allora io penso che il punto qualificante su cui vogliamo lavorare e che abbiamo inserito in questa relazione è che abbiamo bisogno di professionisti più forti, più capaci, più in grado di stare sul mercato internazionale, e questo si fa con la formazione, con la digitalizzazione, con la collaborazione tra il sistema professionale nazionale e all'interno di un sistema europeo.

Questo è quello che abbiamo davanti. La sfida è difficile, è una sfida sulla quale continueremo a lavorare e, credo, con la collaborazione della Commissione e con l'approvazione della prossima direttiva sul test di proporzionalità, avremo gli elementi per far sì che i professionisti europei abbiano le caratteristiche e la capacità di competere nel mondo globale.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place shortly.

Written statements (Rule 162)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – The harmonisation of minimum training requirements of regulated professions (such as doctors, nurses, teachers and others) from 2005 was an important step in order to facilitate the free movement of those specialists across the EU. There is about 5 5000 regulated professions in the Union, standing for approximately 22% of all labour force, which were touched by this piece of legislation. Nevertheless, until now, the full clarity and transparency on the different national requirements, exceeding the minimum harmonisation, have not been achieved. Therefore, the Member States along with the European Commission should improve the overview of the further country-specific requirements and to develop a better comparing system in the publicly accessible database (Regulated Professions Database). I acknowledge the need to protect the national consumers and recipients of services. However, the Commission shall take action and launch infringement procedures to prevent adopting any kind of discriminatory or disproportionate laws that have or will appear at national states’ level. Furthermore, I welcome the EC’s recognition of need to evaluate the influence of modern technologies and digitalisation on professional services to secure a high level of competitiveness.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), na piśmie. – W Unii istnieje ponad 5500 regulowanych zawodów, przy czym między państwami członkowskimi widać wyraźne różnice, jeżeli chodzi o restrykcyjność przyjętych rozwiązań. Przeprowadzone przez Komisję Europejską badania dowodzą, że państwa członkowskie mają problemy z oceną ich proporcjonalności. Jest to istotne, bowiem zawody te odpowiadają za 22 % siły roboczej we wszystkich gałęziach gospodarki. Niepokojące jest również to, że nie wszystkie przepisy dyrektywy 2005/36/WE zostały do tej pory w pełni wdrożone przez państwa członkowskie, i to pomimo upływu terminu.

Komisja Europejska w ostatnim czasie podjęła szereg działań mających przynieść pozytywne efekty w obszarze zawodów regulowanych i dotyczących stworzenia interaktywnej mapy, która umożliwia obywatelom sprawdzenie wymogów w zakresie dostępu do zawodów w całej Unii, czy wskaźnika restrykcyjności regulacji obowiązujących w państwach członkowskich.

Niemniej jednak, jak słusznie zauważa sprawozdawczyni, całościowa analiza ich wpływu powinna podlegać nie tylko ilościowej, ale także jakościowej ocenie. Komisja Europejska w najbliższym czasie powinna skupić się także na wpływie postępu naukowego, innowacji technologicznych i cyfryzacji na zawody regulowane. Zachodzące zmiany stwarzają nowe możliwości dla przedstawicieli tych zawodów, ale stanowią również wyzwania dla unijnego rynku pracy. Tym samym powinniśmy zacząć się zastanawiać, jak dostosować istniejące przepisy prawne w zakresie zawodów regulowanych do zmian technologicznych i społecznych, jakie nas dotkną w najbliższych latach.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE), in writing. – There is no doubt that regulated professions represent an important element in our economy. Therefore, the overview of national systems of regulation of professions and of proportionality assessments conducted by Member States is very important. The report highlights the quality of professional services and the fact that this is of paramount importance in preserving the European economic, social and cultural model. It identifies the main aspects of the implementation of Article 59 of Directive 2005/36/EC and recalls the importance of professional regulations in relation to the protection of legitimate public interests. The report also indicates specific areas in which Member States are invited to consider improvements in their regulation.

It is also important that the Commission has developed a new indicator on the restrictiveness of professional regulation, which may be more effective. In the future, we should monitor the implementation of the recommendations. If necessary, we will be able to measure and address the remaining barriers – a point also underlined in the report. To this end we should also continue to reflect on the impact of scientific progress, innovation and digitalisation on regulated professions.

 
Päivitetty viimeksi: 15. toukokuuta 2019Oikeudellinen huomautus