Recommendations not implemented: delay and unlawful barriers in recognition of EU professional qualification

Recommendations not implemented: delay and unlawful barriers in recognition of EU professional qualification

Published February 13, 2026

The complaint

A Greek national, registered as a Professional Engineer in Spain, applied to the Periti Warranting Board for recognition of his qualification as a Perit Inġinier Ċivili in Malta under Directive 2005/36/EC.

Despite submitting the requested documentation, he experienced prolonged delays, unclear instructions, and shifting requirements. He alleged that, as a result, he could not practise his profession in Malta and suffered financial loss after establishing himself locally.

Facts and findings

The investigation confirmed that the applicant submitted the required documents in April 2025. Because the online portal was not accessible to non-Maltese applicants, he communicated by email, as directed by the Board.

Over the following months, the Board requested proof that he was first established in Malta and indicated that he would need a Maltese e-ID to apply through the portal. This requirement went beyond what is provided for in the Periti Act and its subsidiary legislation. EU nationals are required to show intent to establish through stable arrangements, not to hold a Maltese identity card.

Although the applicant provided a one-year lease agreement in June 2025, the Board continued to deliberate internally and sought advice from the State Advocate. It only confirmed acceptance of the application in October 2025 and later requested additional proof that the lease was registered with the Housing Authority.

The Ombudsman found that the Board failed to comply with clear legal timeframes established in the Mutual Recognition of Qualifications Regulations and the Periti Warrant Regulations, which require applications to be assessed within one month and concluded within three months.

The delay was attributed to the absence of a dedicated process for EU applicants, an incomplete checklist of requirements, and internal uncertainty within the Board regarding evidentiary standards for proof of establishment.

The investigation also noted that the Board’s website and application system did not reflect the requirements set out in the MFHEA guidelines on the Professional Qualifications Directive, creating ambiguity and potential barriers to professional mobility.

Conclusions and recommendations

The Ombudsman concluded that the conduct of the Board amounted to maladministration under Article 22 of the Ombudsman Act. The requirement to obtain a Maltese identity card and the prolonged delay were contrary to law and created a disproportionate barrier to the applicant’s right to practise his profession.

The Ombudsman recommended that the Board treat the application as complete and proceed to a decision within the legal timeframe without imposing additional requirements. The Board was also urged to revise its procedures in line with EU law and MFHEA guidelines, including the creation of an accessible application process for EU nationals and the publication of a clear and exhaustive checklist of requirements.

Outcome

The Periti Warranting Board did not react to the Ombudsman’s Final Opinion. On 5 January 2026, the Ombudsman forwarded the report to the Prime Minister in accordance with Article 22(4) of the Ombudsman Act.

As no reply was received, the Ombudsman, on 2 February 2026, referred the Final Opinion to the House of Representatives in terms of the same provision.