 |
| Geraets-Smits v Stichting Ziekenfonds | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | European Court of Justice |
| Citation(s) | (2001) C-157/99, [2001] ECR I-5473 |
| Keywords | |
| Free movement of services | |
Geraets-Smits v Stichting Ziekenfonds and Peerbooms v Stichting CZ Groep Zorgverzekeringen (2001) C-157/99 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of services in the European Union.
Mrs Geraets-Smits claimed the refusal of reimbursement for treatment for Parkinson's disease in Kassel, which she believed was better than that available in the Netherlands by focusing on individual symptoms, was contrary to TFEU article 56. Mr Peerbooms received neurostimulation treatment in Innsbruck, which likewise would not have been covered in the Netherlands. Experts testified in both cases that it was unjustified or experimental. Dutch social insurance covered medical costs of low income people, but only if it was approved. Funding came from individual premiums, from the state, and some from other private insurance funds. Geraets-Smits and Peerbooms had paid up front in Germany and Austria. Dutch law said authorisation had required that (1) treatment had to be regarded as 'normal in the professional circles concerned', and (2) 'necessary' so that adequate care could not be provided without undue delay by a care provider in the home state. The prior authorisation requirement was challenged as being contrary to TFEU article 56. Governments submitted that hospital services were not an economic activity if it was provided free of charge under a sickness insurance scheme.
The Court of Justice held that member states could organise their social security systems, if it was compatible with EU law rules. Article 57 did not require services to be paid for by those who received it, for it to fall within article 56 - and thus a restriction required justification. However the restrictions in these cases could be justified in the interests of maintaining social security's financial balance, or essential health reasons under TFEU article 52.
55 It must be accepted that a medical service provided in one Member State and paid for by the patient should not cease to fall within the scope of the freedom to provide services guaranteed by the Treaty merely because reimbursement of the costs of the treatment involved is applied for under another Member State's sickness insurance legislation which is essentially of the type which provides for benefits in kind.
[...]
80 From both those perspectives, a requirement that the assumption of costs, under a national social security system, of hospital treatment provided in another Member State must be subject to prior authorisation appears to be a measure which is both necessary and reasonable.
[...]
90 It likewise follows from settled case-law that a scheme of prior authorisation cannot legitimise discretionary decisions taken by the national authorities which are liable to negate the effectiveness of provisions of Community law, in particular those relating to a fundamental freedom such as that at issue in the main proceedings (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C-358/93 and C-416/93 Bordessa and Others [1995] ECR I-361, paragraph 25; Joined Cases C-163/94, C-165/94 and C-250/94 Sanz de Lera and Others [1995] ECR I-4821, paragraphs 23 to 28, and Case C-205/99 Analir and Others [2001] ECR I-1271, paragraph 37). Therefore, in order for a prior administrative authorisation scheme to be justified even though it derogates from such a fundamental freedom, it must, in any event, be based on objective, non-discriminatory criteria which are known in advance, in such a way as to circumscribe the exercise of the national authorities' discretion, so that it is not used arbitrarily (Analir and Others, paragraph 38). Such a prior administrative authorisation scheme must likewise be based on a procedural system which is easily accessible and capable of ensuring that a request for authorisation will be dealt with objectively and impartially within a reasonable time and refusals to grant authorisation must also be capable of being challenged in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.
[...]
94 Only an interpretation on the basis of what is sufficiently tried and tested by international medical science can be regarded as satisfying the requirements set out in paragraphs 89 and 90 above.
95 It follows from those requirements that the institution of a system such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the authorisation decision needed to undergo hospital treatment in another Member State is entrusted to the sickness insurance funds, means that the criteria which those funds must apply in reaching that decision must be objective and independent where the providers of treatment are established.
In the European Union, competition law promotes the maintenance of competition within the European Single Market by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies to ensure that they do not create cartels and monopolies that would damage the interests of society.
The European single market, also known as the European internal market or the European common market, is the single market comprising mainly the 27 member states of the European Union (EU). With certain exceptions, it also comprises Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland. The single market seeks to guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people, known collectively as the "four freedoms". This is achieved through common rules and standards that all participating states are legally committed to follow.
The Freedom to Provide Services or sometimes referred to as free movement of services along with the Freedom of Establishment form the core of the European Union's functioning. With the free movement of workers, citizens, goods and capital, they constitute fundamental rights that give companies and citizens the right to provide services without restrictions in any member country of the EU regardless of nationality and jurisdiction.
Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd (2003) C-167/01 is a leading corporate law case, concerning the EU law of freedom of establishment for companies.
International Transport Workers Federation v Viking Line ABP (2007) C-438/05 is an EU law case of the European Court of Justice, in which it was held that there is a positive right to strike, but the exercise of that right could infringe a business's freedom of establishment under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union article 49. Often called The Rosella case or the Viking case, it is relevant to all labour law within the European Union. The decision has been criticised for the Court's inarticulate line of reasoning, and its disregard of fundamental human rights.
The general principles of European Union law are general principles of law which are applied by the European Court of Justice and the national courts of the member states when determining the lawfulness of legislative and administrative measures within the European Union. General principles of European Union law may be derived from common legal principles in the various EU member states, or general principles found in international law or European Union law. General principles of law should be distinguished from rules of law as principles are more general and open-ended in the sense that they need to be honed to be applied to specific cases with correct results.
O2 (Germany) GmbH & Co OHG v Commission (2006) T-328/03 is an EU competition law case, concerning the requirements for a restriction of competition to be found under TFEU article 101.
Commission v Italy (2009) C-110/05 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of goods in the European Union. This case is commonly referred to as 'Italian Trailers', and is predominantly known for establishing the 'market access test'.
Gebhard v Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano (1995) C-55/94 is an EU law case, concerning the freedom of establishment in the European Union.
Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional and Bwin International Ltd v Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa (2009) C‑42/07 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of services in the European Union.
Albany International BV v Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie (1999) C-67/96 is an EU law case, concerning the boundary between European labour law and European competition law in the European Union.
Hendrix v Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen (2007) C-287/05 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of workers in the European Union.
Deutsches Weintor eG v Land Rheinland-Pfalz (2012) C-544/10 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of services in the European Union.
Opinion 2/13 (2014) is an EU law case determined by the European Court of Justice, concerning the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights, and more generally the relationship between the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights.
Deutsche Post v Commission is a 2011 pair of joined cases, C 463/10 P and C 475/10 P, before the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the scope for judicial review in information injunctions in state aid cases. The opinion, handed down 13 October 2011, interprets Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to mean that any official act on the part of any body, office or agency of the European Union that produces binding legal effects affecting the interests of a natural or legal person is open to challenge before the Court of Justice. Overruling the General Court, the opinion thus strengthens the right to judicial review of administrative acts.
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v Parliament and Council (2013) C-583/11 is an EU law case, concerning judicial review in the European Union.
Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2002) C-413/99 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of citizens in the European Union.
Deutsche Telekom AG v Commission (2010) C-280/08 is a European competition law case relevant for UK enterprise law, concerning telecommunications.
R v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (2010) C-58/08 is an EU law case relevant for UK enterprise law, concerning telecommunications.
Ker-Optika bt v ÀNTSZ Dél-dunántúli Regionális Intézete [2010] ECR, Case C-108/09 is an EU law case concerning a conflict of law between Hungarian national legislation and European Union law. The Hungarian legislation regarding the online sale of contact lenses was considered with regards to whether it was necessary for the protection of public health, and it was concluded that this could have been done by less restrictive measures. Despite the internal measure in this case being categorised as a selling arrangement, which would generally be determined by the discrimination test established in Keck, the Court went on to use a market access test, as per Italian Trailers. Thus, this case is crucial in the recent development of the tests for determining measures equaling equivalent effect.