Why the judgment matters
Can a Swiss authority reject an overseas osteopathy qualification because the applicant lacks professional authorisation in the country of training? In judgment 2C_77/2025 of 26 February 2026, the Federal Supreme Court agreed that this prevented recognition under the applicable European directive. It nevertheless required a separate examination of equivalence under another legal route. The distinction is between a right to be examined and a right to receive recognition.
What happened
A Swiss resident with German bachelor's and master's qualifications in osteopathic therapy asked the Swiss Red Cross in 2023 for equivalence with a Swiss applied-sciences master's degree in osteopathy. The Red Cross declined to examine the application. The Federal Administrative Court subsequently denied recognition. The Supreme Court had to decide whether the absence of direct recognition under the directive ended the matter.
Why the directive route failed
The Court held that osteopathic practice in Germany was not freely open without the required Heilpraktiker permit. The applicant lacked that authorisation, so she did not satisfy Article 13(1) of the version of Directive 2005/36/EC applicable in Switzerland (considerations 6.2–6.6). Nor could she rely on the partial-access rule in Article 4f: that later provision, introduced by Directive 2013/55/EU, had not been incorporated into the Swiss regime (consideration 6.5).
The separate examination the Court required
Under consideration 7.1, the non-discrimination provisions of the Switzerland–EU Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons and proportionality may require a subsidiary comparison of qualifications. Switzerland retains substantial discretion when performing that exercise. Because no such review had taken place, the Federal Administrative Court had infringed Article 10(1)(a) of the Swiss Health Professions Act (consideration 7.2). The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and sent the case back to the Federal Administrative Court.
What the decision does not say
The judges did not themselves recognise the diploma. Nor did they decide that every foreign qualification in every occupation must be recognised. The lesson is narrower and more useful: failure to qualify under one recognition system may leave a separate, legally required equivalence review. That depends on the occupation and the applicable statutory basis.