Notice for the OJ
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Fifth Chamber)
23 October 2003
in Case C-56/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des Affaires de sécurité sociale de Nanterre): Patricia Inizan v Caisse primaire d'assurance maladie des Hauts-de-Seine(1) (Social security ( Freedom to provide services ( Costs of hospital stay to be incurred in another Member State ( Conditions of reimbursement ( Prior authorisation ( Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (
Validity)
(Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-56/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Nanterre (France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Patricia Inizan and Caisse primaire d'assurance maladie des Hauts-de-Seine on the validity and interpretation of Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), and on the interpretation of Articles 49 EC and 50 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2003, in which it has ruled:
1.Consideration of the first part of the question has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 22(1)(c)(i) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996.
2.The second subparagraph of Article 22(2) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, must be interpreted as meaning that the authorisation to which that provision refers may not be refused where it is apparent, first, that the treatment in question is among the benefits provided for by the legislation of the Member State on whose territory the person concerned resides and, secondly, that treatment which is the same or equally effective cannot be obtained without undue delay in that Member State.
3.Articles 49 EC and 50 EC must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, first, makes reimbursement of the cost of hospital care provided in a Member State other than that in which the insured person's sickness fund is established conditional upon prior authorisation by that fund and, secondly, makes the grant of that authorisation subject to the condition that it be established that the insured person could not receive within the territory of the Member State where the fund is established the treatment appropriate to his condition. However, authorisation may be refused on that ground only if treatment which is the same or equally effective for the patient can be obtained without undue delay in the territory of the Member State in which he resides.
____________1 - OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001