Report for the Hearing in Case C-310/90

I — Relevant provínoos

A — Community legislation

The relevant provisioni of Directive 85/384/EEC, which applies in the field of architecture, are the following:

‘Article 2 Each Member State shall recognize the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications acquired as a result of education and training fulfilling the requirements of Articles 3 and 4 and awarded to nationals of Member States by other Member Sutes, by giving such diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications, as regards the right to take up activities referred to in Article 1 and pursue them under the professional tide of architect pursuant to Article 23(1), the same effect in its territory as those awarded by the Member Sute itself. Article 3 Education and training leading to diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications referred to in Article 2 shall be provided through courses of studies at university level concerned principally with architecture. Such studies shall be balanced between the theoretical and practical aspects of architectural training and shall ensure the acquisition of: Article 4 1. The education and training referred to in Arude 2 must satisfy the requirements defined in Article 3 and also the following conditions: (a) the toul length of education and training shall consist of a minimum of either four years of fulltime studies at a university or comparable educational establishment, or at least six years of study at a university or comparable educational establishment of which at least three must be full time; (b) such education and training shall be concluded by successful completion of an examination of degree standard. Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, recognition under Article 2 shall also be accorded to the training given over three years in the “Fachhochschulen” in the Federal Republic of Germany in the form in which it exists at the time of notification of this directive and b so far as it satisfies the requirements laid down in Article 3, giving access to the activities referred to in Article 1 in that Member State with the professional title of architect, provided that such training is supplemented by a four-year period of professional experience in the Federal Republic of Germany sanctioned by a certificate issued by the professional body on whose list the architect wishing to benefit from the provisions of this directive is registered. The body shall previously have established that the work carried out by the architect concerned in the field of architecture constitutes conclusive proof of the practical application of all the knowledge referred to in Article 3. The certificate shall be issued according to die same procedure as that which applies to registration on the list of architects.’

Articles 7 to 9 oí Directive 85/384/EEC introduced a procedure whereby the list of diplomas to be mutually recognized was to be published for information purposes in the Official Journal of the European Communities. Each Member Sute must communicate to the Commission and to the other Member Sutes the list of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications which are awarded within its territory and which it considers meet the criteria laid down in Articles 3 and 4 of the directive.

If neither the Commission nor any of the Member Sutes has doubts concerning any of them, the list is published. If the Commission or a Member Sute has doubts as to whether a diploma meets the criteria laid down in Articles 3 and 4, the Commission may ask the Advisory Committee on Education and Training in the Field of Architecture for an opinion. That opinion is not binding because even if it is a negative one the qualification must be included in the abovementioned list if the relevant Member Sute does not amend its communication, unless another Member Sute or the Commission brings the matter before the Court of Justice under the second paragraph of Article 8 of the directive.

The list of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications which was drawn up under that procedure was published in a Commission communication, No 88/C 270/03 in Official Journal C 270 of 19 October 1988, p. 3. The list was updated by means of Commission communication 89/C 205/06 published in Official Journal C 205 of 10 August 1989, p. 5. Both notices sute that the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications published in the list must be recognized in the case of students who commenced their studies in architecture during the 1988/89 academic year.

Article 10 of the directive reads as follows:

‘Each Member Sute shall recognize the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications set out in Article 11, awarded by other Member Sutes to nationals of the Member Sutes, where such nationals already possess these qualifications at the time of notification of this directive or their studies leading to such diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications commences during the third academic year at the latest following such notification, even if those qualifications do not fulfil the minimum requirements laid down in Chapter II, by giving them as regards the taking up and pursuit of the activities referred to in Article 1 and subject to compliance with Article 23, the same effect within its territory as the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications which it awards in architecture.’

Article 11 reads as follows:

‘The diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications referred to in Article 10 shall be as follows: (a) in Germany the diplomas awarded by higher institutes of fine arts (Dipl.-Ing., Architekt (HfbK)); the diplomas awarded by the departments of architecture (Architektur/Hochbau) of “Technische Hochschulen”, of technical universities, of universities and, in so far as these institutions have been merged into “Gesamthochschulen”, of “Gesamthochschulen” (Dipl.-Ing. and any other title which may be laid down later for holders of these diplomas); the diplomas awarded by the departments of architecture (Architektur/Hochbau) of “Fachhochschulen” and, in so far as these institutions have been merged into “Gesamthochschulen”, by the departments of architecture (Architektur/Hochbau) of “Gesamthochschulen”, accompanied, where the period of study is less than four years but at least three years, by a certificate attesting to a four-year period of professional experience in the Federal Republic of Germany issued by the professional body in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) (Ingenieur grad. and any other title which may be laid down later for holders of these diplomas); the diplomas (Prüfungszeugnisse) awarded before 1 January 1973 by the departments of architecture of “Ingenieurschulen” and of “Werkkunstschulen”, accompanied by a certificate from the competent authorities to the effect that the person concerned has passed a test of his fonnál qualifications in accordance with Article 13, ... ’

Article 31(1) of the direttive states that Member Sutes are to take the measures necessary to comply with the directive within 24 months of its notification.

B — Qualifications in architecture available in the Federal Republic of Germany

The relevant authorities in the Federal Republic of Germany, and those of the other Member States, communicated to the Commission a list of the education and training on the basis of which the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications meeting the criteria laid down in Articles 3 and 4 of the directive could be delivered, for the purposes of publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities in accordance with Article 7 of the directive. The list mentioned 42 courses, of which 18 were said to last for four years, including practical semesters (Praxissemester) which form part of the course and arc supervised by the Fachhochschule. The Constance Fachhochschule is regarded as giving courses which last for four years.

After one of the Member Sutes expressed doubts as to the diplomas awarded by the Fachhochschulen, the Advisory Committee on Education and Training in the Field of Architecture issued an opinion on 29 July 1987 pursuant to Article 8 of the directive.

In the opinion it was stated that the courses conducted by the Fachhochschulen and the Universität-Gesamthochschulen which include a practical semester did not appear to satisfy the provision requiring that the total duration of the education and training must consist of a minimum of ‘four years of fulltime studies’ in view of the fan that the practical semester, although an integral pan of the course, did not have the same value as a term's full year study at an educational establishment. Consequently, in the opinion of the Advisory Committee, the derogation provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the directive, that is to say the additional requirement of four years' professional experience, should be applied to all qualifications in architecture delivered by the Fachhochschulen, except the Fachhochschule in Kiel, which has four year courses with no practical semester.

In a new communication from the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany dated 14 October 1987 the German authorities reiterated their claim that the 18 four-year courses, including that in the Constance Fachhochschule, should be recognized by the other Member Sutes.

They maintained that the qualifications delivered on completion of those courses satisfied the conditions laid down in Article 4(1 )(a) of the directive.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany based its claim on the argument that the practical semesters were an integral part of the course, that the content of the course was laid down by laws and regulations adopted by the authorities, that the examination rules were approved by the competent minister, that the practical semesters were always incorporated into theoretical studies and always followed by a term of theory culminating in the final examination and, lastly, that the practical semesters could not qualify as final terms.

Subsequently, the Commission published the list of diplomas communicated by the Federal Republic of Germany with the following footnote: ‘These diplomas are to be recognized under the conditions provided for in Article 4(1) of Directive 85/384/EEC either under the first indent or the second indent depending on the duration of the training to which they relate’ (Official Journal C 270 of 19 October 1988, p. 3 and Official Journal C 205 of 10 August 1989, p. 5).

C — Belgian legislation

Directive 85/384/EEC was transposed into Belgian law by a Royal Decree dated 4 July 1990. The Architects' Association has existed in Belgium since 1963 and no-one may practice as an architect in that country unless his name has been entered on the register or on the list of trainees.

II — Facts and procedure

1. The respondent in the main action, Mr Egle, who is of German nationality and has lived in Belgium for some years, applied to have his name entered on the register of the Architects' Association of the Province of Limburg. Mr Egle holds a diploma from the Department of Architecture (Architektur/Hochbau) of the Constance Fachhochschule dated 25 July 1981 and awarded on completion of four years' study, which included two practical semesters which were an integral pan of the course and which were conducted under the supervision of the Fachhochschule in accordance with the law on Fachhochschulen of the Land Baden-Wünemberg. Mr Egle's application, which was submitted before Directive 85/384/EEC was transposed into Belgian law but after the expiry of the time-limit for transposing it, was rejected by the Architects' Association of the Province of Limburg on 29 March 1988.

2. Mr Egle appealed against that decision to the Raad van Beroep van de Orde van Architecten (Appeals Committee of the Architects' Association) which held in a decision of 12 April 1989 that the Architects' Association of the Province of Limburg had been wrong to reject Mr Egle's application for registration. The Committee based its decision on the fact that Mr Egle held a diploma which must be recognized, pursuant to Articles 2 to 4 of Directive 85/384/EEC, as having the same legal effects as the architect's diploma awarded in Belgium. The Appeals Committee held that there was no reason not to recognize as fulfilling the conditions for recognition laid down in the directive the four years' training completed by Mr Egle, of which the two practical semesters formed an integral part.

3. The Nationale Raad van de Orde van Architecten appealed against that decision to the Hof van Cassatie. It argued that the Appeals Committee had misinterpreted the provisions of Directive 85/384/EEC: Mr Egle's diploma did not satisfy the conditions for recognition laid down by the directive because the two practical semesters should not have been taken into account to make up the four years' fulltime study in his case.

4. The Hof van Cassatie considered that the dispute raised a question concerning the interpretation of the words ‘full-ume studies’ and therefore by a judgment of 5 October 1990 referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the following question:

‘Must Article 4(1 )(a) of Directive 85/384/EEC be interpreted in such a way that education and training which lasts for four yean and which includes integrated practical semesters, supervised by the Hochschule, may be regarded as fulltime studies of four years?’

5. The order making the reference was lodged at the Court Registry on 10 October 1990.

6. Pursuant to Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC written observations were lodged by the appellant, represented by R. Butzler, Avocat, Brussels, by the German Government, represented by E. Roder, of the Federal Ministry for the Economy, acting as Agent, by the Italian Government, represented by P. E Ferri, Avvocato dello Stato, acting as Agent, and by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by E. Lasnet and P. van Nuffel, acting as Agents.

7. Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the Advocate Genera] the Court decided to open the oral procedure without any preliminary inquiry and to assign the case to the Sixth Chamber.

III — Written observations submitted to the Court

1. According to the appellant it is necessary to determine whether the qualification awarded by the Constance Fachhochschule on completing a four-year course which includes two practical semesters may be regarded as satisfying the conditions laid down in Article 4, or possibly Article 11, of Directive 85/384/EEC. The National Council of the Architects' Association points out that the Advisory Committee on Education and Training in the Field of Architecture, which was set up in accordance with Directive 85/384/EEC, considered that the courses conducted by the Fachhochschulen which included a practical semester did not satisfy the requirement of four years' fulltime study. The appellant sutes that that Committee found that notwithstanding the observations put forward by the German Government on the purpose, manner of conducting and rules governing the practical semesters the courses conducted by the Fachhochschulen which included such semesters did not appear to satisfy the provision to the effect that the total length of the training must include a minimum of ‘four years of fulltime studies’ in view of the fact that although the semesters were incorporated into the courses, they did not have the same value as courses of fulltime study conducted in an educational establishment. The appellant maintains that even if practical semesters form an integral part of the training, the content of the training is laid down by laws and regulations adopted by the authorities, the rules governing examinations are approved by the appropriate minister, the semesters in question are followed by a term of theoretical study culminating in the final examination and they cannot be a last term in the course, that is not sufficient to enable a series of practical semesters alternating with theoretical ones to be regarded as ‘fulltime studies’ within the meaning of Articles 4 and 11 of the directive, especially as short courses of study, followed by a period of practical experience, are subject to special rules and conditions. The appellant therefore considers that Mr Egle's training does not meet the conditions laid down in Articles 4 and 11 of the directive, so that the question which has been referred for a preliminary ruling should be answered in the negative. It asks that the Court should declare that the ‘four years of fulltime studies’ referred to in Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 85/384/EEC are genuine theoretical studies, supplemented if necessary by periods of practical studies, but excluding any training which includes ‘Praxissemester’, which are longer periods of solely practical study.

2. The German Government makes the preliminary remark that this case may serve to clarify an important legal question concerning the interpretation of Directive 85/384/EEC, inasmuch as the establishment of German architects in Belgium has given rise to difficulties on a number of occasions. The German Government explains that during the negotiations prior to the adoption of Directive 85/384/EEC, which lasted nearly 18 years, recognition of the training provided in the German Fachhochschulen was one of the main problems. Fachhochschulen give courses lasung three years, three and a half years and four years. In those German Lander which have chosen to have four year courses, the link with practical experience is made by means of one or two practical semesters which form an integral part of the course. During the discussions in the Council many delegates were opposed to recognising shorter courses; however, no difficulty arose as regards recognition of the training courses dispensed by the Fachhochschulen which were for a total of four years including one or two practical semesters. As regards training given in Fachhochschulen of less than four years' duration, a compromise was reached in Article 4(1), second subparagraph, of the directive, inasmuch as a four-year period of professional experience in the Federal Republic of Germany was required as a supplementary condition for recognition. The German Government points out that during those negotiations the training given by Fachhochschulen which lasted for a total of four years including one or two practical semesters was unanimously considered by the other delegates to fall within Article 4(l)(a) of the directive. Consequently, the Council and the Commission entered a joint declaration in the minutes to the effect that ‘periods of practical training incorporated into the course culminating in an examination do not affect the fulltime nature of such training’. The German Government states that in view of the fact that the diploma in question was delivered before the directive was notified, it should be recognized on the basis of the combined provisions of Articles 10 and 11(a), third indent, of the directive. The studies evidenced by the diploma did in fact last for four years. Regardless of whether recognition is based on the above provisions or on Article 4(1 Xa) of the directive, the decisive factor is that practical semesters form an integral part of the studies. Accordingly, the German Government considers that the question which has been referred to the Court should be answered in the affirmative. The German Government considers that ‘four years of fulltime studies’ within the meaning of Anide 4(1 Xa) of the directive should be taken to mean training lasting four years, including practical semesters organized and supervised by the higher educational establishment. A qualification which is obtained on completion of training which lasts for four years, and in the course of which two semesters arc arranged as practical semesters, thus constitutes a qualification which meets the requirements of the combined provisions of Articles 2, 3 and 4(1 )(a) of the directive, and must therefore be recognized by the host Sute. It explains that the directive is based on the concept of a course of education and training comprising both theory and practice and dispensed by a higher educational establishment. Article 3 requires the studies to be balanced between the theoretical and practical aspects of architectural training. They must also ensure the acquisition of not only theoretical knowledge but also practical skills. According to the German Government the question of how theoretical studies are to be combined with practical training is left in each case to the discretion of the Member States when it comes to architectural studies. The directive's purpose is not to harmonize training but merely to lay down criteria for the mutual recognition of architectural qualifications in order to facilitate access to exercise of that profession. It is therefore open to Member States to link the practical training in a permanent way to the theoretical studies or to arrange it by means of integrated course components comprising one or two practical semesters. The German Government argues that by virtue of Article 4(1 Xa) of the directive, training must comprise a minimum of four years of fulltime studies at a university. According to the legislation of the Länder which govern the departments of architecture in the Fachhochschulen, practical semesters form an integral part of architectural studies. The legislation determines both the place occupied by practical semesters within the framework of the studies and their aims and content, which are harmonized with the aims and content of the theoretical semesters and the training as a whole. Lasdy, the German Government emphasizes that in order to establish a link between training in the Fachhochschulen and practical experience, practical semesters generally take place in undertakings. However, the Fachhochschulen supervise the training given in the undertaking and conduct seminars to accompany it. During practical semesters the student remains registered at his or her university. Completion of practical semesters and observance of the course content are controlled and guaranteed by means of written reports submitted by the student and by the architects' firm which has been approved by the university for training purposes, as well as by means of the supervision of a university lecturer. If the purpose of the practical training is not achieved, the practical semester is not recognized and must, if necessary, be redone in whole or in part. In the opinion of the German Government, the general scheme of Article 4 of the directive indicates that in adopting that provision the Community legislature accepted that there were two différent lengths of course in the training dispensed by the Fachhochschulen: those of four years' duration and those of less than four years' duration. Were it otherwise, it would not have been necessary to make the express exception for three year courses given by Fachhochschule provided for in Article 4(1). Finally, the German Government points out that the Commission did not follow the opinion issued by the Advisory Committee on Education and Training in the Field of Architecture as regards the training provided by the Fachhochschulen. On the contrary, in its communication concerning the list of qualifications awarded by Fachhochschulen in the Federal Republic of Germany the Commission added a footnote taking into account the different lengths of courses in the Fachhochschulen and expressly confirming the existence of four-year courses to be recognized in accordance with Article 4(1 )(a) of the directive. The German Government adds that other Member States have not exercised the powers conferred on them by Article 8 of the directive, so that the Commission's communication is applicable in all the Member Sutes. The Italian Government observes that the reference made by the Belgian Court raises the question whether the qualification in question qualifies for mutual recognition under Directive 85/384/EEC. The question is whether Mr Egle's diploma meets the conditions laid down in Article 4(1 Xa) of the directive, in particular as regards the requirement of four yean of fulltime study. The Iulian Government sutes that since the four years covered by the diploma in question melude two practical semesters, the Belgian court rightly doubts whether those semesters may be taken into consideration when calculating the four years of fulltime study. There is support for a reply in the negative both in the obvious material difference between studies and a period of practical training and in the fact that the studies referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 4(1 Xa) of the directive must be fulltime studies. The requirement of fulltime studies cannot be met if, during the time devoted to study, an activity other than study is pursued. In addition, according to the description given by the Belgian court, in the training in question the studies and the practical training are conducted separately, since two semesters are devoted exclusively and wholly, it seems, to the practical training. Consequently, the Iulian Government is of the opinion that unlike the training defined in the first subparagraph of Article 4(1 Xa), of the directive, the diploma in question must be regarded as a diploma awarded on completion of training comprising three years of fulltime studies. That conclusion seems to be borne out by the second pan of the first subparagraph of Article 4, which lays down a special exception as regards training given in Fachhochschulen in the Federal Republic of Germany. That provision assumes that the normal characteristic of such establishments is that they provide three year courses which are not, as such, sufficient to satisfy the provisions contained in the first pan of subparagraph 1 of Article 4 of the directive. The Italian Government points out that no other conclusion would appear to be possible in view of the fact that, according to the certificates examined by the Belgian court, the practical training is an integral part of the course being organized by the same Fachhochschule and having to be completed before the final examination necessary to obtain a diploma. Even taking that particular aspea — which distinguishes the practical training in question from the period of professional experience certified by the appropriate professional body as provided for in Article 4, subparagraph 1, second part, of the directive — into account, the activities generally pursued by a person undergoing such practical training, even if they are laid down for the purpose of forming part of professional training, nevertheless remain a matter of practice rather than study, to which they can only play a supplementary role. That conclusion is borne out by the fact that the practical training is organized and completed during special semesters devoted exclusively to it and in the course of which no formal study is undertaken. The Italian Government emphasizes that the provisions contained in Article 3 of the directive also indicate that in any case periods of practical training cannot be assimilated to study. Those provisions indicate that the directive is based on a conception of studies which is strictly in accordance with the true sense of that word. It adds that Article 3 of the directive requires that practical and theoretical aspects be balanced in the studies. The reference to practice, however, concerns the style of the training, and not the possibility of replacing it by a period of practical training. Consequently, the Italian Government considers that the question which has been referred for a preliminary ruling should be answered in the negative.

4. The Commission observes that instead of listing the diplomas which must be granted mutual recognition, Directive 85/384/EEC lays down the criteria on the basis of which an architectural qualification must be recognized as such in another Member Sute. It is of the opinion that the question referred for preliminary ruling should be answered in the Affirmative. In that regard, it sutes that the concept of ‘fulltime studies’ comprises two elements. The Commission explains that ‘fulltime’ is generally taken to refer to an activity which ukes up a whole working day and is used in opposition to the concept of ‘part-time’, which means that the activities in question are pursued for only part of the working day, leaving time free for other activities. Fulltime studies therefore means studies which take up a whole day, whereas part-time studies leave time free for work, for other studies or for other activities. The Commission maintains that the concept of ‘studies’ cannot nowadays be restricted to mere theoretical learning, but must include seminars, practical experience, essays and other activities in which students are required to participate in order to obtain the qualification. Such activities often form an obligatory component of studies in view of the fact that practical exercises are increasingly regarded as an essential element of any training. The Commission regards the concept of ‘fulltime studies’ as referring to. the time which the student must devote to learning in order to obtain the qualification in question, and refers in no way to the manner in which the necessary knowledge, abilities and skills must be acquired. Since the question which has been referred to the Court of Justice makes mention of the special circumstance that the course in question includes practical semesters, the point to be settled is whether those semesters, which are manifestly devoted principally to acquiring practical experience, may be regarded as ‘studies’. It considers that if those practical semesters are incorporated into the courses as are practical exercises run in parallel to theoretical courses, and are organized, supervised and assessed by the Hochschule, those periods must be taken into account when determining whether the person concerned has completed four years of fulltime study. The Commission adds that since the Council has decided that diplomas which meet the minimum requirements set out in Articles 3 and 4 of the directive must be regarded everywhere as sufficient to gain access to the profession of architect, if a Member State considers that in order to obtain a qualification in architecture it is necessary to participate during the training in one or two semesters devoted entirely or principally to acquiring practical experience, that view must be accepted by the other Member States and diplomas obtained on that basis must be recognized. It emphasizes that a practical semester forms pan of the training, incorporated in the programme of study and organized, supervised and assessed by the Hochschule, which must be successfully completed in order for the diploma to be awarded. Consequently, the Commission considers that training which meets the requirements set out in Article 3 of the directive and the total duration of which is a minimum of four years of fulltime study at a university or a comparable educational establishment constitutes training within the meaning of Article 4(1), first subparagraph, of the directive even if practical semesters are included in the course, provided that those semesters are incorporated in the course and are organized, supervised and assessed by the educational establishment. The Commission points out that as regards the practical semesters conducted in many Fachhochschulen in order to qualify as an architect, the German authorities have declared that those semesters form an integral part of the training. Their content is the subject of detailed rules and practical experience is acquired in a firm of architects approved by the Hochschule. The manner in which the training is conducted is followed by means of written reports by the student and by the firm of architects as well as by a lecturer, who also supervises it. Moreover, if the purpose of the training has not been achieved, the practical semester must be wholly or partly redone. Practical semesters are always placed between theoretical ones and courses may never end with a practical semester. The Commission sutes that that interpretation is borne out by the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the directive, which provides for different rules as regards the three year courses given by Fachhochschulen in the Federal Republic of Germany. Those courses are only recognized if they are supplemented by four years' professional experience. The fact that it is stated in that exception that it applies to training in the Fachhochschulen ‘given over three years’ has no sense unless there exist in the Fachhochschulen other courses which last a minimum of four years and do not fall within that exception. If the Community legislature had wished to include in that exception all the training courses given in the Fachhochschulen, it would not have made reference to ‘three years’. Accordingly, the Commission considers that the training in architecture given in Fachhochschulen falls within the scope of Article 4(1), first subparagraph, of the directive, if it comprises four years of fulltime study, even if those studies include one or two practical semesters. The communication it made pursuant to Articles 7 to 9 of the directive bears out that conclusion, moreover. Admittedly, that communication is limited to a general description of the qualifications which must be given mutual recognition, and the diplomas awarded by the Fachhochschulen are referred to only in a general fashion. However, the footnote which refers specifically to the diplomas awarded by the Fachhochschulen and which stipulates that they are to be recognized in the conditions laid down in Article 4(1) of the directive ‘depending on the duration of the training to which they relate’ indicates clearly that the only criterion for making a distinction is the duration of the training. No Member Sute has challenged that communication, despite the negative opinion issued by the Advisory Committee on Education and Training in the Field of Architecture. As regards recognition of the qualification in question under the principle of established rights, the Commission points out that Mr Egle obtained his diploma in the Department of Architecture of the Constance Fachhochschule in 1981. On that basis, he could ask for his diploma to be recognized pursuant to Anides 10 and 11 of the direttive. The Commission considers that the fact that he may rely on established rights under those provisions does not prevent him relying on the general provisions in Articles 2 et seq. of the directive, which are not restricted to new diplomas and which require any diploma which satisfies the minimum requirements set out in Articles 3 and 4 of the directive to be recognized. The Commission maintains that the choice of obtaining recognition under the general provisions rather than on the basis of esublished rights makes no difference in this case as regards the question of interpretation. Article 11(a), third indent, of the directive makes the same distinction as that in Article 4(1), first and second subparagraphs. Admittedly, Article 11 refers only to the ‘period of study’ without using the words ‘fulltime’, but the absence of those words can only serve at most to support the conclusion that practical semesters must be included in the period of study. The Commission considers that if recognition of the diploma is sought under Article 2 of the directive the diploma must satisfy the requirements set out in Articles 3 and 4. Consequently, it suggests that the Court reply as follows: ‘Training which meets the criteria laid down in Article 3 of Directive 85/384/EEC and the total duration of which is at least four years of fulltime studies at a university or a comparable educational establishment is training within the meaning of Article 4(1), first subparagraph, of the directive even if the duration of the study comprises practical semesters, provided that the latter are incorporated in the courses of study and are organized, supervised and assessed by the educational establishment.’

M. Diez de Velasco

Judge-Rapporteur

1 Language aí the cue: Dutch.