Frankly speaking, I have no explicit answer to your question but I would like to add some valuable global sources regarding the parliamentary mandate, which by its side will definitely help you to tackle and solve the issue you raised.

First of all please visit the official web page of The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU). http://www.ipu.org/english/home.htm

Please, also find the comprehensive publication published by IPU respecting parliamentary mandate.

THE PARLIAMENTARY MANDATE A GLOBAL COMPARATIVE STUDY Inter-Parliamentary Union Geneva 2000

With kind regards,

Karlo Godoladze

P.S. Please, find attached file.

Just to say that there is no such exams in France. For local autorities neither, but some professionnal training are paid by the municipality (or "departement" or "région"). The professional training companies must be authorised by the Government, just to control if they have the competences required.

Best.

Pr Gregory Kalfleche

An interesting idea-historical reference to your question is Rousseau´s "Considerations for the Government of Poland and its proposed Reform", in particular chapter 10 on Administration (http://www.constitution.org/jjr/poland.htm). Best, Felix

Indian Panchayati Raj implemented minimum qualification to be elected and similarly verysoon likely to be implemented for Parliamentarian qualification 

I have never heard. But this is a very interesting question. 

I have never heard. But this is a very interesting question. 

I have never heard. But this is a very interesting question. 

I do not know if there is a mandatory exam at the end, but some countries do have mandatory training in legislative procedure for elected members of parliament (and many countries have voluntary training). see for example: 

Ken Coghill 'How Should Elected Members Learn Parliamentary Skills?

at:

http://www.aph.gov.au/~/~/link.aspx?_id=B4F0F33CE8CD4657AE356D8976E6FC4B&_z=z

Good luck,

Ittai

While the USA has "Congress" rather than Parliament, we have no "testing" whatsoever.  Obviously, we have requirements to hold office, but those do not pertain to any requirement that a candidate for our House of Representatives or Senate demonstrate academic knowledge of proficiency.  Indeed, this would run counter to the concept of our Republic with a Democratic form of government.  I expect that the US "Founding Fathers" would likely have felt that THE POPULACE is better qualified to assess a person's knowledge and experience rather than the drafter of a test and would have feared that drafting such a test would have allowed King George's sympathizers (and there were many even after the American Revolution) to craft a test in a manner designed to exclude "undesirables." 

Can be interesting, the European Court of Human Rights had to assess a language test in PODKOLZINA v. LATVIA (9 april 2002, n° 46726/99) § 34: "... the Court concludes that requiring a candidate for election to the national parliament to have sufficient knowledge of the official language pursues a legitimate aim." (but in that case the Court condemned Latvia because the examination was not objective and fair)

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-60417

Thank you very much for all interesting answers!

I am sorry for not reacting immediately, but I have been offline for some time.

I agree that the dispute between the supporters of qualified deputies and representative deputies is hardly possible to settle.

I look forward to further comments, information, thoughts, remarks.