Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen by order of 28 November 2001 in the case of Ludwig Leichtle against the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Case C-8/02)
Date: 2002-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, health care, interpretation of the law, public health, social-security benefit

C 84/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.2002

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sozialgericht
Hannover by order of 12 December 2002 in the case of
Silke Gaumain-Cerri against Kaufmännische Krankenkas-
se-Pflegekasse, additional party Bundesversicherungsan-
stalt für Angestellte

(Case C-502/01)

(2002/C 84/86)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Hannover
(Social Court, Hanover) of 12 December 2001, received at the
Court Registry on 27 December 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Silke Gaumain-Cerri against Kaufmännische
Krankenkasse-Pflegekasse,
Bundesversi-
cherungsanstalt für Angestellte [Federal Insurance Office for
Clerical Staff], on the following questions:

additional

party

(a) Can the expressions ‘sickness benefit’ and ‘old-age benefit’
within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation
No 1408/71 (1) cover benefits paid by one insurer to
another if the insured derives only an abstract and indirect
advantage therefrom (payment of pension insurance
contributions by the care insurance fund on behalf of a
voluntary carer)? If they can, under what circumstances
can they do so?

(b)

Is there a prohibition of discrimination under primary or
secondary Community law from which it follows that a
benefit as described in (a) above is to be granted
irrespective of whether
the activity conferring the
entitlement to benefit is carried on in Germany or in
another EU Member State, and irrespective of where the
insured or the immediate beneficiary has his residence?

(1) OJ L 149, p. 2.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
gericht Sigmaringen by order of 28 November 2001 in
the case of Ludwig Leichtle against the Bundesanstalt für
Arbeit

(Case C-8/02)

(2002/C 84/87)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Sigmaringen (Sigmaringen Administrative Court) of 28 Nov-
ember 2001, received at the Court Registry on 11 January
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ludwig Leichtle
against the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit on the following questions:

1. Are Articles 49 and 50 EC to be interpreted as precluding
rules of national law (in this case Paragraph 13(3) of
the Allgemeine Verwaltungsvorschrift für Beihilfen in
Krankheits-, Pflege-, Geburts- und Todesfällen (General
Administrative Provisions concerning Assistance in the
Event of Sickness, Treatment, Birth and Death — ‘the
Assistance Provisions’) which render the assumption of
the costs of a health cure in another Member State
conditional on the health cure being absolutely necessary
outside the Federal Republic of Germany on account of
greatly increased prospects of success, on this being
proven by a report from a medical officer or a medical
consultant, and on the spa concerned being listed in the
Register of Spas?

2. Are Articles 49 and 50 EC to be interpreted as precluding
rules of national law (in this case point 3 in the first
sentence of Paragraph 13(3) of the Assistance Provisions,
read in conjunction with Paragraph 8(3)(2) thereof) under
which advance recognition of a health cure is not possible
if the person concerned does not wait for the application
procedure or any subsequent court proceedings to be
concluded before commencing the health cure and the
only matter in dispute is whether the rules of national
law correctly rule out eligibility for assistance in the form
of a health cure in a Member State of the European
Union?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bayerisches
Oberstes Landesgericht by order of 19 December 2001 in
criminal proceedings against Marco Grilli

(Case C-12/02)

(2002/C 84/88)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bayerisches Oberstes
Landesgericht (Bavarian Supreme Court) of 19 December
2001, received at the Court Registry on 16 Janaury 2002, for
a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against Marco
Grilli on the following question:

Is Article 29 EC to be interpreted as precluding a national rule
that makes it a criminal offence for an Italian national to
obtain a transit registration mark from the competent Italian
authorities, affix licence plates bearing that mark to a vehicle
offered for sale in Germany, and then drive that vehicle on the
public highway from Germany to Italy?