The numbers behind a physiotherapy recognition case
In B-4821/2023, the court recorded that Swiss physiotherapy programmes provided a median of 475–570 hours (19 ECTS) of research methods and evidence-based practice. The authority initially credited around 60 hours of relevant continuing education. The applicant argued that his modules totalled 320 hours, but the records did not show that all 320 hours covered the specific missing skills. The court considered the differences established and dismissed the appeal. Federal Administrative Court, B-4821/2023, consideration 5.
What the cited judgments actually decide
In B-4821/2023 of 8 March 2024, the Federal Administrative Court reviewed a Dutch physiotherapy qualification. It explained that the authority bears the burden of establishing substantial differences (consideration 3.7), while applicants have a duty to cooperate. On the facts, the court found sufficiently proven gaps in scientific methods and evidence-based practice despite the applicant's experience, and dismissed the appeal. The decisions 2C_493/2017 and BGE 140 II 185, cited in that judgment, originally concern academic recognition under the Lisbon Convention. They should not be presented as independent rulings about compensation measures in regulated professions.
The legal threshold
Under the general recognition regime of Directive 2005/36/EC, an authority cannot assume that every difference between two programmes justifies a compensatory measure. Under Article 14(1), specified materially different training or professional activities may warrant an aptitude test or an adaptation period where the directive applies. Article 14(4) addresses differences that concern knowledge, skills and competences essential to pursuing the profession.
The precise legal test depends on the profession, applicable sectoral regime and its incorporation in Swiss law. This issue cannot be resolved simply by comparing nominal course lists.
Prior comparison and proven competences
The authority should establish which legally material competences remain missing and why those differences are sufficiently significant. Article 14(5) expressly addresses the knowledge, skills and competences acquired through professional experience and lifelong learning that must be taken into account when applicable before prescribing a measure.
In the Swiss professional-recognition context, see also the authorities cited in the underlying ALPYREN guidance: BVGer B-4821/2023, E. 3.7; BGer 2C_493/2017, E. 5.3; BGE 140 II 185, E. 4.2. Their applicability must be assessed against the concrete legal regime and facts.
Review of proportionality
- Which knowledge or professional activities are alleged to be absent?
- Which evidence demonstrates the missing content and its materiality?
- Which additional education and experience have been considered?
- Is the proposed aptitude test limited to identified, legally relevant differences?
- Is the adaptation period or other measure proportionate to those differences?
- Were the applicable procedural rights, reasons and appeal options respected?
Available next steps
Depending on the procedural stage, it may be appropriate to submit supplementary evidence, request a legally reasoned assessment or challenge an imposed measure. A remedy or submission must follow the competent authority's procedure and the actual legal deadline. See our compensation-measures guide and refusal / partial recognition guide.
Primary legislation: Directive 2005/36/EC, Articles 13–14.
Which version applies in Switzerland?
The 2013 amendments to Directive 2005/36/EC did not automatically become applicable to Switzerland. SERI explains that Directive 2013/55/EU has not generally been incorporated into the Swiss–EU recognition framework. In particular, the original Article 14(4) refers to essential matters that differ materially in duration or content, while the original Article 14(5) requires consideration of professional experience. The profession-specific regime and the version incorporated through Annex III of the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons must be checked.
Primary sources: Directive 2005/36/EC, original text; SERI / SBFI guidance.