Judgment of the Court of 12 July 2001 in Case C-368/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Mons): Abdon Vanbraekel and Others v Alliance nationale des mutualités chrétiennes (ANMC) (Social security — Sickness insurance — Articles 22 and 36 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Freedom to provide services — Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) — Hospital treatment costs incurred in another Member State — Refusal of authorisation subsequently declared unfounded)
Date: 2001-09-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, hospital expenses, interpretation of the law, mutual assistance scheme, redemption, social security

C 275/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.9.2001

— Council Regulation (EC) No 2800/98 of 15 December
1998 on transitional measures to be applied under
the common agricultural policy with a view to the
introduction of the euro (OJ 1998 L 349, p. 8) and, more
particularly, Articles 2 and 3 thereof;

— Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 of 15 December
1998 establishing agrimonetary arrangements for the
euro (OJ 1998 L 349, p. 1) and, more particularly,
Articles 4 and 5 thereof and the annex thereto,
in
particular paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof;

— Commission Regulation (EC) No 2808/98 of 22 Decem-
ber 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application
of the agrimonetary system for the euro in agriculture (OJ
1998 L 349, p. 36); and

— Commission Regulation (EC) No 2813/98 of 22 Decem-
ber 1998 laying down detailed rules for applying the
transitional measures for the introduction of the euro to
the common agricultural policy (OJ 1998 L 349, p. 48),

the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann
(Rapporteur) and L. Sevo´ n,
Jacobs, Advocate
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 5 July 2001, in which it:

Judges; F.G.

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

10 July 2001

in Case C-315/99 P: Ismeri Europa Srl v Court of Auditors
of the European Communities (1)

(Appeal — MED programmes — Special Report No 1/96 of
the Court of Auditors — Principle of the right to a hearing
— Naming of third parties — Necessity and proportionality)

(2001/C 275/03)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-315/99 P: Ismeri Europa Srl, established in Rome
(Italy), represented by S. Ristuccia and G.L. Tosato, avvocati,
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 15 June 1999
in Case T-277/97 Ismeri Europa v Court of Auditors [1999]
ECR II-1825) seeking to have that judgment set aside, the
other party to the proceedings being: Court of Auditors of the

European Communities, (Agents: J.-M. Stenier, J. Inghelram
and P. Giusta) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı´guez
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris
(Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,
J.-P. Puissochet
(Rapporteur), P.
Jann, L. Sevo´ n, R. Schintgen, F. Macken
and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 July 2001, in which it:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ismeri Europa Srl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 12 July 2001

in Case C-368/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour du travail de Mons): Abdon Vanbraekel and
Others v Alliance nationale des mutualités chrétiennes
(ANMC) (1)

(Social security — Sickness insurance — Articles 22 and 36
of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Freedom to provide
services — Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-
ment, Article 49 EC) — Hospital treatment costs incurred in
another Member State — Refusal of authorisation sub-
sequently declared unfounded)

(2001/C 275/04)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-368/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC)
from the Cour de
travail de Mons (Higher Labour Court, Mons) Belgium for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Abdon Vanbraekel and Others and Alliance
nationale des mutualités chrétiennes (ANMC) — on the
interpretation of Articles 22 and 36 of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71 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, in the version amended and updated by Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230,
p. 6), and of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 49 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; A. Saggio, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 12 July 2001, in which it has ruled:

29.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 275/3

1. Article 22(1)(c) and (i) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of socia1
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
and to members of their families moving within the Community,
in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, is to be interpreted as
meaning that, when an insured person has been authorised by
the competent institution to go to another Member State for
treatment, the institution of the place where the treatment is
provided is required to provide him with benefits in kind in
accordance with the rules on assumption of the costs of health
care which the latter administers, as if the person concerned
were registered with it.

Where the request of an insured person for authorisation on the
basis of Article 22(1) (c) of that regulation as been refused by
the competent institution and it is subsequently established that
such refusal was unfounded, the person concerned is entitled to
be reimbursed directly by the competent institution by an
amount equivalent to that which would have been borne by the
institution of the place of stay under the rules laid down by the
legislation applied by the latter institution if authorisation had
been properly granted in the first place.

As Article 22 of that regulation is not intended to regulate any
reimbursement at the tariffs in force in the Member State of
registration,
it does not have the effect of preventing or
prescribing payment by that State of additional reimbursement
covering the difference between the system of cover laid down by
the legislation of that State and the system applied by the
Member State of stay, where the former is more advantageous
than the latter and such reimbursement is provided for by the
legislation of the Member State of registration.

Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49
EC) is to be interpreted as meaning that, if the reimbursement
of costs incurred on hospital services provided in a Member
State of stay, calculated under the rules in force in that State, is
less than the amount which application of the legislation in
force in the Member State of registration would afford to a
person receiving hospital treatment in that State, additional
reimbursement covering that difference must be granted to the
insured person by the competent institution.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 12 July 2001

in Case C-399/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la
Lombardia): Ordine degli Architetti delle Province di
Milano et Lodi v Comune di Milano (1)

(Public works contracts — Directive 93/37/EEC — National
legislation under which the holder of building or planning
permission may execute infrastructure works directly in
lieu of tax — National legislation permitting the public
authorities to negotiate directly with an individual the terms
of administrative acts concerning him)

(2001/C 275/05)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-399/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC)
from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Regional Admin-
istrative Court of Lombardy) (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Ordine
degli Architetti delle Province di Milano et Lodi, Piero De
Amicis, Consiglio Nazionale degli Architetti, Leopoldo Freyrie
and Comune di Milano,
Interveners: Pirelli SpA, Milano
Centrale Servizi SpA, Fondazione Teatro alla Scala, formerly
Ente Autonomo Teatro alla Scala — on the interpretation of
Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
coordination of procedures far the award of public works
contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skou-
ris (Rapporteur), J-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 July 2001, the
operative part of which is as follows:

2. Article 36 of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended
and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, cannot be interpreted
as meaning that it follows from that provision that a covered
person who has
requested authorisation on the basis of
Article 22(1)(c) of that regulation and been refused by the
competent institution is entitled to reimbursement of all the
medical costs which he incurred in the Member State in which
he received treatment once it is established that the rejection of
his request for authorisation was unfounded.

Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts
precludes national urban development legislation under which, in
disregard of the procedures laid down in the Directive, the holder of a
building permit or planning permission may execute an infrastructure
work directly, in return for exemption, wholly or in art, from the
charge payable upon such permission being granted, in cases where
the value of that work is not less than the ceiling fixed by the
Directive.

(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.

(1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.