Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
30 May 2017
E-003590-17
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 130
Philippe Juvin (PPE)

 Subject:  Proportionality test directive and specific public health needs

The Commission has adopted a proposal for a directive (COM(2016) 822 final) that is intended to benefit access to regulated professions. The general idea behind the proposal is to improve scrutiny of regulations on access to certain professions, as the Commission considers that in far too many cases, criteria set by Member States for setting up businesses or practices are unjustified.

The regulations in France, however, have a beneficial effect. Pharmacists are a regulated profession in France, meaning that every area of the country has at least one. Doctors, however, for whom there are no specific regulations, can set up practice wherever they want, even though many areas in France are suffering from a lack of healthcare.

Hence, thanks to the restrictions imposed on pharmacists, as a profession they are spread fairly across the whole of France’s territory for the good of the public’s health.

Is the Commission considering ring-fencing specific regulations in certain fields, most notably health, so that Member States can continue to regulate health professions where there are specific essential needs?

Original language of question: FR 
Last updated: 15 June 2017Legal notice