- News
- Publications
- Press releases
- Links
- Contact
- Members area
User login
Enter your username and password here in order to log in on the website:
As part of the EU Commission’s mutual evaluation exercise, over the past two years EU countries have been undergoing an evaluation of their regulatory framework governing access to professions. This exercise resulted in the publication of National Action Plans (NAPs), in which Member States outline how they will improve their regulatory framework. In May, DG GROW launched a public consultation inviting stakeholders to share their views on these NAPs and proportionality in regulation. While the Architects’ Council of Europe (ACE) considered that it was not appropriate to evaluate its members’ NAPs, it submitted a commentary to express its own position on professional regulation.
The ACE has been closely following the mutual evaluation exercise launched by the Communication of October 2013, as it targets specifically the architectural profession. In the past, it already expressed concerns following the publication of the study giving an Overview of the regulatory framework in the business services sector by using the example of architects (October 2015), which was based on old material and went beyond the evaluation of rules governing access to professions.
In its commentary on the consultation, ACE recalls that, while levels of regulation are quite similar in the field of architecture, they take different forms (ex ante vs. ex post) depending on the historic approach to regulation in Member States. The registration of architects ensures the protection of public health, safety and welfare, as well as a level playing field, consistency of standards and quality of services. Registration bodies maintain a register of qualified persons, oversee their conduct via Codes of Conduct and sanctions, make provision for dispute resolution and monitor requirements for professional indemnity insurance and Continuing Professional Development (CPD).
On the other hand, ACE underlines that some areas of work are reserved to architects for the protection of the public interest and contests that regulation of title restricts consumer choice. Indeed, theCommission’s own research showed there is no statistically significant correlation between reserves of activity and the market dominance of a profession.
Finally, ACE points out that growth and mobility in architectural services are driven by the economy: Architects go where there is work. They make decisions based on economic considerations, along with cultural, language and historical factors – regardless of the regulatory regime. The ACE Sector Study reveals that insufficient language skills, insufficient knowledge of local planning / building regulations and local market, practical and location issues, are the most cited obstacles to cross-border activity.
Read the full commentary on the ACE website
