Federal Court orders case-by-case review of osteopathy diplomas

The Swiss Red Cross (SRK) must reassess two applications for recognition of foreign osteopathy diplomas. The Federal Court upheld the appeals of two osteopaths who have practised in Switzerland for years and referred the cases back to the SRK. The rulings, handed down on 6 August 2026, set a clear limit to the previous practice: a qualification must not fall out of substantive review simply because it does not fit the scheme of the European recognition directive.

The decisions are not a free pass, however. The Federal Court established neither full nor partial equivalence of the diplomas. It requires instead that the SRK carry out precisely the examination that has so far been omitted: what knowledge and skills do the foreign training programmes convey, how do they relate to the Swiss master's standard, and which gaps could be closed with reasonable compensatory measures?

Two educational paths, the same legal gap

Case 2C_580/2025 concerned a Swiss-Belgian dual citizen. He had obtained a «Diploma of Osteopathy D.O.» at the International Academy of Osteopathy (IAO) in Ghent and, after a conversion course, a Bachelor of Science from the University of Westminster. He worked in Belgium from 1997 and in Switzerland from 2002. In 2024 the SRK did not enter into the substance of his recognition application; the Federal Administrative Court later formulated this as a rejection.

The second appellant, the subject of ruling 2C_557/2025, was a trained physiotherapist who had also obtained an IAO diploma and later a British master's degree. In his case too, neither the Belgian nor the British educational qualification had been fully assessed for equivalence.

Both cases reveal the same structural problem. Osteopathy is a regulated health profession in Switzerland. Anyone who wants to work independently generally needs a Master of Science in Osteopathy FH or a recognised foreign qualification. In Belgium, unlike Switzerland, the profession is not regulated. After Brexit, the United Kingdom in principle counts as a third country, although transitional law applies to applications submitted in time.

The court demands examination, not automatism

The Federal Court distinguishes precisely between direct recognition and a subsidiary equivalence assessment. If the EU directive on the recognition of professional qualifications does not apply, the procedure does not automatically end. In the case of an EU qualification, the authorities must, on the basis of the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons and the principle of proportionality, compare objectively whether the diploma certifies the same or at least equivalent knowledge and skills.