Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 May 2001 in Case C-311/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Roma): Criminal proceedings against Armando Caterino (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 75/442/EEC — Waste — Transport, on a professional basis — Obligation to register — Possibility of relying on a directive as against an individual)
Date: 2001-09-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental protection, interpretation of the law, waste disposal, waste management, waste recycling

C 275/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.9.2001

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 12 July 2001

Arrondissementsrechtbank

in Case C-157/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the
Roermond):
B.S.M. Geraets-Smits v Stichting Ziekenfonds VGZ and
H.T.M. Peerbooms v Stichting CZ Groep Zorgverzeker-
ingen (1)

te

(Freedom to provide services — Articles 59 of the EC Treaty
(now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) and 60 of the EC
Treaty (now Article 50 EC) — Sickness insurance — System
providing benefits in kind — System of agreements —
Hospital treatment costs incurred in another Member State
— Prior authorisation — Criteria — Justification)

(2001/C 275/06)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-157/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arrondissements-
rechtbank te Roermond (District Court, Roermond) Nether-
lands for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between B.S.M. Geraets-Smits and Stichting
Ziekenfonds VGZ and between H.T.M. Peerbooms and Sticht-
ing CZ Groep Zorgverzekeringen — on the interpretation of
Articles 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49
EC) and 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) — the Court;
composed of: G.C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann,
A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet and V. Skouris
(Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,
P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; D. Ruiz-
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 July 2001, in
which it has ruled:

Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)
and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) do not preclude
legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main
proceedings, which makes the assumption of the costs of treatment
provided in a hospital located in another Member State subject to
prior authorisation from the insured person’s sickness insurance fund
and the grant of such authorisation subject to the condition that
(i) the treatment must be regarded as ‘normal in the professional
circles concerned’, a criterion also applied in determining whether
hospital treatment provided on national territory is covered, and
(ii)
require that
treatment. However, that applies only in so far as

the insured person’s medical

treatment must

— authorisation can be refused on the ground of lack of medical
necessity only if the same or equally effective treatment can be
obtained without undue delay at an establishment having a
contractual arrangement with the insured person’s sickness
insurance fund.

(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 29 May 2001

in Case C-311/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale di Roma): Criminal proceedings against
Armando Caterino (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive
75/442/EEC — Waste — Transport, on a professional basis
— Obligation to register — Possibility of relying on a
directive as against an individual)

(2001/C 275/07)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court; Reports)

In Case C-311/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Tribunale di Roma (Italy) for a preliminary ruling
the criminal proceedings pending before that court against
Armando Caterino, on the interpretation of Article 12 of
Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ
1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive
91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) — the
Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris (Rapporte-
ur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric,
Judges; S. Alber; Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
made an order on 29 May 2001, the operative part of which
is as follows:

A directive cannot by itself, and independently of a national law of a
Member State adopted with a view to its application, have the effect
of determining or aggravating the criminal liability of persons who
act in breach of its provisions.

— the requirement that the treatment must be regarded as ‘normal’
is construed to the effect that authorisation cannot be refused
on that ground where it appears that the treatment concerned is
sufficiently tried and tested by international medical science,
and

(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.