Judgment of the Court of 25 February 2003 in Case C-326/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis): Idryma Koinonikon Asfaliseon (IKA) v Vasilios Ioannidis (Social security — Hospital treatment of a pensioner during a stay in a Member State other than the State in which he resides — Conditions for funding — Articles 31 and 96 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 31 and 93 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72)
Date: 2003-04-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Community migration, EU national, interpretation of the law, self-employment, social security, wage earner

C 101/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2003

Finland (Agent: T. Pynnä): Application for a declaration
that, by failing to classify special protection areas fully and
its
definitively, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil
obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/
409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds
(OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen
and C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), F. Macken and J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2003, in
which it:

(1) Declares that, by failing to classify fully and definitively the
SPAs in its territory, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive
79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild
birds.

(2) Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

( 1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 25 February 2003

in Case C-326/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis): Idryma
Koinonikon Asfaliseon (IKA) v Vasilios Ioannidis (1)

(Social security — Hospital treatment of a pensioner during
a stay in a Member State other than the State in which he
resides — Conditions for funding — Articles 31 and 96 of
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 31 and 93 of
Regulation (EEC) No 574/72)

(2003/C 101/04)

(Language of the case: Greek)

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

In Case C-326/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Diikitiko Protodikio Thessalonikis (Greece) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Idryma Koinonikon Asfaliseon (IKA) and Vasilios
Ioannidis on the interpretation of Articles 31 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, as amended and updated by
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ
1983 L 230, p. 6), as amended by Council Regulation (EC)
No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995 (OJ 1995 L 335, p. 10), of

Articles 31 and 93 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of
21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, as amended and updated by
Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 3096/
95, of Articles 56 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Articles 46 EC and 49 EC) and 60 of the EC
Treaty (now Article 50 EC), and of Article 1 of the Protocol to
the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rod-
ríguez Iglesias, President, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and
C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann, V. Skouris,
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 25 February 2003, in which it has ruled:

1. Article 31 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, as amended and
updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June
1983, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95
of 22 December 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that
enjoyment of the benefits in kind guaranteed by that provision
to pensioners staying in a Member State other than their State
of residence is not subject to the condition that the illness which
necessitated the treatment in question manifested itself suddenly
during such a stay, making that
immediately
necessary. That provision therefore precludes a Member State
from subjecting that enjoyment to such a condition.

treatment

2. Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and
updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regu-
lation No 3096/95, precludes a Member State from subjecting
the enjoyment of the benefits in kind guaranteed by that
provision to any authorisation procedure.

3.

The provision and funding of the benefits in kind referred to in
Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and
updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regu-
lation No 3096/95, must normally take place in accordance
with the provisions of that article in conjunction with Article 36
of that regulation and Articles 31 and 93 of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the
procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71,
as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as
amended by Regulation No 3096/95.

26.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/3

4. Where it appears that the institution of the place of stay has
wrongly refused to provide the benefits in kind referred to in
Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and
updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regu-
lation No 3096/95, and the institution of the place of
residence, on being advised of that refusal, has declined to
contribute, as it
to facilitating the correct
application of that provision, it is for the latter institution,
without prejudice to the possible liability of the institution of
the place of stay, to reimburse directly to the insured person the
cost of the treatment he has had to bear, so as to guarantee him
a level of funding equivalent to that which he would have
enjoyed had the provisions of that article been complied with.

is obliged to,

5.

In the latter case, Articles 31 and 36 of Regulation No 1408/
71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as
amended by Regulation No 3096/95, and Articles 31 and 93
of Regulation No 574/72, as amended and updated by
Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation
No 3096/95, preclude national legislation from subjecting
such reimbursement to the obtaining of ex post facto authoris-
ation which is granted only in so far as it is shown that the
illness which necessitated the treatment in question manifested
itself suddenly during the stay, making that treatment immedi-
ately necessary.

( 1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 27 February 2003

in Case C-327/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia):
Santex SpA v Unità Socio Sanitaria Locale n. 42 di Pavia (1)

(Directive 93/36/EEC — Public supply contracts — Directive
89/665/EEC — Review procedures applicable to public
contracts — Limitation period — Principle of effectiveness)

(2003/C 101/05)

(Language of the case: Italian)

before that court between Santex SpA and Unità Socio
Sanitaria Locale n. 42 di Pavia, interveners: Sca Mölnlycke
SpA, Artsana SpA and Fater SpA, on the interpretation of
Article 22 of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993
coordinating procedures for the award of public supply
contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1) and Article 6(2) EU, the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of
the Chamber, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris (Rapporteur),
F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 27 February 2003, in which it has
ruled:

the award of public

Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the
coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public
supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive
92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of
procedures for
service contracts, must be
interpreted as imposing on the competent national courts, where it is
established that, by its conduct, a contracting authority has rendered
impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of the rights conferred
by the Community legal order on a national of the Union who has
been harmed by a decision of that contracting authority, an obligation
to allow as admissible pleas in law alleging that the notice of
invitation to tender is incompatible with Community law, which are
put forward in support of an application for review of that decision,
by availing itself, where appropriate, of the possibility afforded by
national law of disapplying national rules on limitation periods,
under which, when the period prescribed for bringing proceedings for
review of the notice of invitation to tender has expired, it is no longer
possible to plead such incompatibility.

(1) OJ C 36 of 4.11.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 27 February 2003

in Case C-373/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien): Adolf Truley
GmbH v Bestattung Wien GmbH (1)

(Directive 93/36/EEC — Public supply contracts — Concept
of ‘contracting authority’ — Public-law body — Funeral
undertaking)

(2003/C 101/06)

(Language of the case: German)

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

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

In Case C-327/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending

In Case C-373/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien (Austria) for
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that