Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:1998:167
Date: 1998-04-28
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Full Court
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Measures having equivalent effect;Quantitative restrictions
Concepts: Rules concerning the production, denomination and marketing of products;Stay or residence outside the competent Member State;General
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Luxembourg

Summary of the Judgmen t 
1. Social security for migrant workers — Powers of the Member States to organise their social 
security systems — Limits — Compliance with Community law— Treaty rules on free move­
ment of goods 
(EC Treaty, Art. 30) 
I -1831 
SUMMARY — CASE C-120/95 
2. Social security for migrant workers — Sickness insurance — Benefits provided in another 
Member State — Article 22 of Reguhtion No 1408/71 — Scope — Reimbursement by the 
Member States, at the tariffs in force in the competent State, of the cost of medical products 
purchased in another Member State — Whether excluded 
(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 22) 
3. Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — 
National rules on reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in another Member State — 
Purchase of medical products — Spectacles — Requirement of prior authorisation by the social 
security institution of the State of insurance — Not permissible —Justification — Control of 
health expenditure — Protection of public health — None 
(EC Treaty, Arts 30 and 36) 
1. The fact that national rules fall within the 
sphere of social security cannot exclude 
the application of Article 30 of the Treaty. 
While Community law does not detract 
from the powers of the Member States to 
organise their social security systems, 
they must nevertheless comply with 
Community law when exercising those 
powers. 
2. Article 22 of Regulation N o 1408/71 is 
intended to allow an insured person, 
authorised by the competent institution 
to go to another Member State to receive 
there treatment appropriate to his con­
dition, to receive sickness benefits in 
kind, on account of the competent insti­
tution but in accordance with the provi­
sions of the legislation of the State in 
•which the services are provided, in par­
ticular where the need for the transfer 
arises because of the state of health of the 
person concerned, without that person 
incurring additional expenditure. It is not 
intended to regulate and hence does not 
in any way prevent the reimbursement by 
Member States, at the tariffs in force in 
the competent State, of the cost of medi­
cal products purchased in another Mem­
ber State, even without prior authori­
sation. 
3. Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty preclude 
na t i ona l rules under which a social secu­
rity institution of a Member State refuses 
to reimburse to an insured person on a 
flat-rate basis the cost of a pair of spec­
tacles with corrective lenses purchased 
from an optician established in another 
Member State, on the ground that prior 
authorisation is required for the purchase 
of any medical product abroad. 
Such rules must be categorised as a bar­
rier to the free movement of goods, since 
they encourage insured persons to 
I - 1 8 3 2 
DECKER v CAISSE DE MALADIE DES EMPLOYÉS PRIVÉS 
purchase those products in the national 
territory rather than in other Member 
States, and are thus liable to curb their 
import. 
They are not justified by the risk of seri­
ously undermining the financial balance 
of the social security system, since reim­
bursement at a flat rate of the cost of 
spectacles and corrective lenses purchased 
in other Member States has no significant 
effect on the financing or balance of the 
social security system, nor are they justi­
fied on grounds of public health in order 
to ensure the quality of medical products 
supplied to insured persons in other 
Member States, since, as the conditions 
for taking up and pursuing regulated pro­
fessions have been the subject of Com­
munity directives, the purchase of a pair 
of spectacles, on a prescription from an 
ophthalmologist, from an optician estab­
lished in another Member State provides 
guarantees equivalent to those afforded 
on the sale of a pair of spectacles by an 
optician established in the national terri­
tory. 
I - 1833