Case C-193/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sozialgericht Stuttgart by order of that Court of 19 March 2003 in the case of Betriebskrankenkasse der Robert Bosch GmbH against Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the Bundesversicherungsamt
Date: 2003-08-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, application of EU law, health expenditure, interpretation of the law, social-security benefit, social-security harmonisation, worker (EU)

23.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/7

1.

2.

export

system of

Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November
1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of
the
refunds on agricultural products, as
amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/94 of
26 July 1994 imposes no limit on the length of time by which
a time-limit may be extended for the benefit of an exporter
under Article 47(4) of the regulation. It is for the competent
national authorities to set the length of extensions of time in
accordance with the particular circumstances of the case, taking
particular account of
the degree of diligence with which the
exporter seeking the extension of time has acted, the nature of
the difficulties confronting the exporter and the amount of time
which it will reasonably take to overcome those difficulties.

Exporters have no right to apply directly to national courts for
an extension of time of a specific duration but do have a legal
right of recourse against decisions taken by competent national
authorities under Article 47(4) of Regulation No 3665/87, as
amended by Regulation No 1829/94. The detailed rules and
parameters of any such procedure shall be governed by the
national
in accordance with the
principles of effectiveness and equivalence as defined in Commu-
nity law.

the Member States,

law of

Action brought on 13 May 2003 by Ireland against the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-199/03)

(2003/C 200/13)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 13 May 2003 by Ireland, represented by
D. J. O'Hagan, acting as agent, assisted by P. Gallagher SC and
P. McGarry, Barrister, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

declare the action admissible;

(1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.

2.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sozialgericht
Stuttgart by order of that Court of 19 March 2003 in the
case of Betriebskrankenkasse der Robert Bosch GmbH
against Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the
Bundesversicherungsamt

in the framework of

annul Commission Decision C(2003)99 reducing assis-
tance granted from the European Social Fund under
Commission Decisions C(94)3226 of 29 November 1994
(operational programme for human resources develop-
ment)
the project 940002IR1;
C(94)1972 of 29 July 1994 (operational programme for
the project 940001IR1;
tourism),
C(94)2613 of 15 November 1994 (operational programme
for
the
project 940004IR1, approving operational programmes
in whole or in part, or in
under objective 1 in Ireland,
respect of such periods or amounts as the Court should
determine;

industrial development),

in the framework of

in the framework of

(Case C-193/03)

(2003/C 200/12)

3.

order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceed-
ings.

Justice of

Reference has been made to the Court of
the
European Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Stuttgart
(Social Court, Stuttgart) of 19 March 2003, received at the
Court Registry on 9 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Betriebskrankenkasse der Robert Bosch GmbH against
Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the Bundesversi-
cherungsamt on the following question:

Whether Article 34 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 (1)
precludes a practice,
in implementation of Paragraph 13(3)
SGB V, of flat-rate reimbursement by an insurer of costs for
in another Community country, on the
medical
model of similar provisions on small amounts.

treatment

(1) OJ L 74 of 27.3.1972, p. 1.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1.

it

submits

is apparent

The Applicant
from the
that
contested decision that the Commission manifestly failed
to properly consider the evidence furnished by Ireland
which unambiguously demonstrated that in fact there was
no overpayment or overfinancing in relation to ESF
eligible projects. Because of a mistaken characterisation
of the exercise carried out by Ireland to demonstrate that
no such claim of overpayment or overfinancing occurred,
and because of
the evidence
its mistaken belief
adduced by Ireland somehow would have an impact on
the financial
the Commission failed to properly
the evidence and drew incorrect conclusions
consider
from certain elements.

tables,

that