Case C-156/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Centrale Raad van Beroep by order of 21 March 2001 in the disputes between R. P. van der Duin and ANOZ Zorgverzekeringen UA and ANOZ Zorgverzekeringen UA and T.W. van Wegberg-van Brederode
Date: 2001-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: health insurance, interpretation of the law, residence, social security, social-security benefit, transfer of pension rights

14.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 200/39

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Centrale Raad
van Beroep by order of 21 March 2001 in the disputes
between R. P. van der Duin and ANOZ Zorgverzekering-
en UA and ANOZ Zorgverzekeringen UA and T.W. van
Wegberg-van Brederode

Appeal brought on 12 April 2001 by the Federal Republic
of Germany against the judgment delivered on 31 January
2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-156/98 between
RJB Mining PLC and Commission of the European Com-
munities, supported by RAG Aktiengesellschaft and Fed-
eral Republic of Germany

(Case C-156/01)

(2001/C 200/71)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 21 March 2001 by the
Centrale Raad van Beroep (Higher Social Security Court),
which was received at the Court Registry on 10 April 2001,
for a preliminary ruling in the disputes between R. P. van der
Duin and ANOZ Zorgverzekeringen UA, a mutual guarantee
society, and ANOZ Zorgverzekeringen UA and T.W. van
Wegberg-van Brederode on the following questions:

1. Does Article 22(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1)
also apply to (a member of the family of) a pensioner who
is entitled under Article 28 of Regulation No 1408/71 to
receive benefits from the institution of the place of
residence, (in the present cases from the French or the
Spanish sickness assurance funds respectively),
those
benefits being chargeable to the institution competent in
of Regulation
accordance with Article
No 1408/71, that is to say the Netherlands sickness
assurance fund, in a situation in which the pensioner (or
a member of his family) travels to the competent Member
State in order to receive medical treatment?

28(2)(a)

2.

3.

If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, which insti-
tution is responsible for granting the authorisation
referred to in Article 22(1)(c) of Regulation No 1408/71?

If the answer to Question 1 is negative, do the provisions
of Article 21 or those of Article 31 of Regulation
No 1408/71 govern entitlement to benefits of (a member
of the family) of a pensioner who is entitled under
Article 28 of Regulation No 1408/71 to receive benefits
from the institution of the place of residence, (in the
present cases from the French or the Spanish sickness
assurance funds respectively), those benefits being charge-
able to the institution competent in accordance with
Article 28(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, that is to say
the Netherlands sickness assurance fund, in a situation
where the person concerned is staying in the territory of
the competent State?

(1) OJ 1996 L 323, p. 38.

(Case C-157/01 P)

(2001/C 200/72)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-156/98 RJB Mining PLC and
Commission of the European Communities, supported by
RAG Aktiengesellschaft and Federal Republic of Germany,
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 12 April 2001 by the Federal Republic of
Germany, represented by Ministerialrat Wolf-Dieter Plessing,
Oberregierungsrat Dr Thomas Jürgensen, Bundesministerium
der Finanzen, and Martina Maier, Haarmann Hemmelrath,
Paris.

The appellant

1.

2.

3.

claims that the Court should set aside the judgment of
the Court of First
Instance of 31 January 2001
[T-156/98 (1)] in so far as it held that the application was
founded;

continues to seek the form of order sought at First
Instance;

claims that the applicant at First Instance should be
ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— The Court of First Instance infringed Community law
because it declared the application admissible even
though the applicant, not being in an actual or potential
competitive position, cannot be regarded as individually
concerned by the contested decision and because the
applicant, inter alia in view of the commitment given by
RAG in the framework of the merger, had no interest in
bringing proceedings.

the

— The CFI misapplied Article 66(2) of the ECSC Treaty in
that it incorrectly assumed that the Commission, when
carrying out
competition under
analysis of
Article 66(2) ECSC, could not fail to examine whether,
and if so to what extent, the financial and thus economic
whether, and if so to what extent, the financial and thus
economic power of the merged entity was strengthened
by all the elements which might constitute State aid,
in particular, however, benefits which may have been
contained in the DEM 1 purchase price for SBW.