The European Commission has now replied to the parliamentary question posed earlier this year, when Professors Adrian Agius of Malta and John Fenton of Ireland brought a petition on patient safety. 
Prof John Fenton, Irish MEP Cynthia Ní Mhurchú and Prof Adrian Agius.
The UEMS (European Union of Medical Specialists) in recent years pressured specialist societies to define their European Training Requirements (ETR) in documents that had to be approved by Council. The ETR for Otorhinolaryngology (ORL) was overwhelmingly approved by UEMS Council in October 2020 by 24 votes to 1. In January 2021 the ETR for Oromaxillofacial surgery was presented, containing significant sections of the ORL curriculum such that it was deemed unrealistic that these competences could be attained in their proposed training programme of five years. The ORL section at that time explained that there were no mechanisms for the monitoring or achievement of claimed training goals in areas where patients were already well served by ORL specialists in all EU countries. The OMFS ETR was refused by Council in April 2021 but approved in October 2021 by a single vote.
This case was presented to and declared admissible for scrutiny by the European Union due to possible effects on freedom of movement, since there were concerns with the level of training and consequences to European patients.
A petition was presented to the Petitions Committee with a speech by Prof Adrian Agius at the European Parliament on 14 May 2025, supported by Prof John Fenton as co-petitioner ( https://youtu.be/vVO4Bogn_sE ). A joint parliamentary question was subsequently submitted by the attending Members of Parliament to the European Commission. The case was also referred for deliberation by IMCO (Committee for Internal Market and Consumer Protection).
The European Commission replied on 10 November 2025 to Parliamentary Question 003487/2025 and these are the main points:
- The UEMS is an Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) based in Brussels but with no official or legal role within European Union
- The UEMS has no role to define curricula
- The EU Commission does not endorse ‘European Training Requirements’ developed by UEMS
- Only EU Member states and no others are responsible for training professionals and setting standards within the EU
- Trainees are protected against non-accredited curricula by means of the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance
- UEMS guidelines may only be adopted if formally integrated by member states into their nationally accredited curricula.
It is hoped that medical NGOs such as UEMS would confine themselves in the future to their advisory role regarding specialty curricula. The guiding principle of such NGOs should be the Hippocratic oath of ‘primum non nocere' (do no harm) to both patients and trainees. It is evident that large changes in curriculum of specialties compromises the EU professions directive 2005/36/EC and may trigger withdrawal of recognition of certain specialties by member states, thus endangering the principle of free movement of professionals within the EU.
