To qualify for registration and enrolment, candidates must normally possess a university-level scientific or technical qualification, i.e. a bachelor's degree or equivalent academic degree awarded at the end of a full-time course of a minimum of three years, with at least 80% of the course hours taken to obtain this degree having been devoted to scientific and/or technical subjects (Art. 11(1)(a) REE, R. 11 IPREE, also R. 12 IPREE). The qualifying subjects include biology, biochemistry, construction technology, electricity, electronics, information technology, mathematics, mechanics, medicine, pharmacology and physics (R. 13 IPREE). There is no legal requirement as to the minimum number of course hours required; to establish if a candidate's degree can be considered as having been devoted mostly (80%) to science/technology, the legislator chose the number of years (a "minimum" benchmark easier to establish than the number of hours) and the percentage of courses devoted to technical and/or scientific subjects (D 13/14). The board in D 9/14 emphasised that the 80% is always to be calculated from the required course hours for the particular degree under scrutiny (which in the case in hand required four years of study). It furthermore accepted that a calculation based on credits may be suitable for the purposes of R. 11(2) IPREE but that, in the case of any discrepancy between the calculations based on course hours and those based on credits, the former is authoritative.

Otherwise, under R. 14 IPREE, equivalent knowledge may be demonstrated on the basis at least ten years' experience in the activities defined in Art. 11(2)(a) REE – see also in this chapter V.C.2.1.2 and furthermore the board's interpretation of R. 14 IPREE in D 9/14.

In similar cases D 1/12, D 2/12, D 3/12 and D 4/12 (see also D 9/14), the DBA concluded that the appellant possessed neither a university-level qualification meeting the above criteria (in particular because the required 80% of course hours in scientific and/or technical subjects was not met) nor sufficient professional experience to provide a basis for equivalent knowledge. However, while the appellants in cases D 1/12 to D 4/12 had started their practical training (see in this chapter V.C.2.1.2) after the amended REE entered into force on 1.1.2009, the respective appellants in D 7/14 and D 8/14 had already started it before then. In the latter two cases, the DBA held that, on the basis of the principles of good faith and equal treatment, the REE 1994 with its IPREE and Instructions should be applied, in accordance with the practice of the Examination Secretariat before 1.1.2009 (see e.g. D 1/12). Also taking into account the relevant jurisprudence (in particular D 5/08), the board was satisfied in both cases that the appellant was suitably qualified under the 1994 provisions.

Earlier decisions relating to the REE 1994 and its Instructions concerning the qualifications required for enrolment for the EQE are D 15/04, D 17/04, D 18/04 and D 8/04, reported in the "Case Law of the Boards of Appeal", 5th ed. 2006, and also D 5/08, D 10/08.