Case C-145/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social by order of that Court of 6 November 2002 in the social security proceedings brought by Ms Annette Keller against Instituto Nacional de la Salud (INSALUD) and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)
Date: 2003-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, equal treatment, form, hospital expenses, interpretation of the law, social-security benefit, third country

C 146/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.6.2003

Action brought on 31 March 2003 by Commission of the
European Communities against Portuguese Republic

(National Social Security Institute)
questions:

(INSS) on the following

(Case C-144/03)

(2003/C 146/43)

An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. França and J. Flett, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
to comply with Commission Directive 2000/52/EC (1) of
26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the
transparency of
financial relations between Member
States and public undertakings, the Portuguese Republic
has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 2 of
Directive 2000/52/EC;

1. Are Form E-111 and in particular Form E-112, the issue
of which is provided for in Articles 22(1)(c) of Regulation
No 1408/71 (1) and Article 22(1) and (3) of Regulation
No 574/72 (2), binding on the competent institution
which issues them (in this case the Spanish Social
Security) as regards the diagnosis made by the institution
of the place of residence (in this case the German Public
Health Service), and specifically the conclusions reached
therein that the worker required an immediate surgical
operation as the only treatment capable of saving her life
and that the operation could only be carried out by a
hospital
in a country not belonging to the European
Union, namely the University Clinic in Zurich, Switzer-
land, so that the institution of the place of residence may
send the worker to that hospital without the competent
institution being authorised to require the worker to
return so that it can carry out the medical examinations
it considers appropriate and offer him [her] the care
options appropriate for the pathology which he [she]
presents?

— declare in any event that, by failing to communicate
forthwith those provisions to the Commission, the Portu-
guese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 2 of Directive 2000/52/EC;

2.

— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for implementation of the directive
expired on 31 July 2001.

( 1) OJ L 193 of 29.7.2000, p. 75.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo
Social by order of that Court of 6 November 2002 in the
social security proceedings brought by Ms Annette Keller
against Instituto Nacional de la Salud (INSALUD) and
Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

(Case C-145/03)

(2003/C 146/44)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo Social
(Social Court) of 6 November 2002, received at the Court
Registry on 31 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
social security proceedings brought by Ms Annette Keller
against Instituto Nacional de la Salud (National Health Institute)
(INSALUD) and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social

Is the principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 3
of Regulation No 1408/71, which provides that workers
are to ‘... enjoy the same benefits under the legislation of
in
any Member State as the nationals of that State’,
conjunction with Articles 19(1)(a) and 22(1)(i) of that
regulation, which provide that a worker residing in the
territory of another Member State is to be entitled to
benefits in kind provided on behalf of the institution of
the place of stay or residence in accordance with the
provisions which it applies, as though he were insured
with it, to be interpreted as meaning that the competent
institution is required to assume the costs of the health
care provided by a country outside the European Union
when it is established that if the worker had been affiliated
to or been insured by the institution of the place of
residence he would have been entitled to that health
benefit, when in addition the said health care — that is,
health care in cases of life-threatening emergency pro-
vided by private centres, including those in countries not
belonging to the European Union — is among the
benefits provided for by the legislation of the competent
State?

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on
the application of social security schemes to employed persons
and their families moving within the Community (OJ L 149 of
05.07.1971, p. 2).

(2) Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972
fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/
71 on the application of social security schemes to employed
persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ
L 74 of 27.03.1972, p. 1).