Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 October 2003 in Case C-56/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des Affaires de sécurité sociale de Nanterre): Patricia Inizan v Caisse primaire d'assurance maladie des Hauts-de-Seine (Social security — Freedom to provide services — Costs of hospital stay to be incurred in another Member State — Conditions of reimbursement — Prior authorisation — Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Validity)
Date: 2003-12-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, freedom to provide services, hospitalisation, interpretation of the law, labour mobility, social security, wage earner

13.12.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 2 October 2003

in Case C-195/99 P: Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG v Com-
mission of the European Communities( (1))

(Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European
producers of beams)

(2003/C 304/01)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-195/99 P, Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG, established in
Dortmund (Germany),
(represented by F. Montag): Appeal
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Compo-
sition) of 11 March 1999 in Case T-147/94 Krupp Hoesch v
Commission [1999] ECR II-603, seeking to have that judgment
set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: Commission
of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils,
assisted by H.-J. Freund), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward,
A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges;
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
2 October 2003, in which it:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.

(Fifth Chamber)

of 23 October 2003

in Case C-56/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal des Affaires de sécurité sociale de Nanterre):
Patricia Inizan v Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie des
Hauts-de-Seine( (1))

(Social security — Freedom to provide services — Costs of
hospital stay to be incurred in another Member State —
Conditions of reimbursement — Prior authorisation —
Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Validity)

(2003/C 304/02)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-56/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Nanterre
(France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Patricia Inizan and Caisse primaire
d’assurance maladie des Hauts-de-Seine on the validity and
interpretation of Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
of the Council 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

C 304/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.12.2003

Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
(EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1),
and on the interpretation of Articles 49 EC and 50 EC, the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans,
President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of
the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann, S. von
Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2003, in which it
has ruled:

1.

2.

Consideration of the first part of the question has disclosed no
factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 22(1)(c)(i)
of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council 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 (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December
1996.

The second subparagraph of Article 22(2) of Regulation
No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/
97, must be interpreted as meaning that the authorisation to
which that provision refers may not be refused where it is
apparent, first, that the treatment in question is among the
benefits provided for by the legislation of the Member State on
whose territory the person concerned resides and, secondly, that
treatment which is the same or equally effective cannot be
obtained without undue delay in that Member State.

3. Articles 49 EC and 50 EC must be interpreted as not precluding
legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main
proceedings, which, first, makes reimbursement of the cost of
hospital care provided in a Member State other than that in
which the insured person’s sickness fund is established con-
ditional upon prior authorisation by that fund and, secondly,
makes the grant of that authorisation subject to the condition
that it be established that the insured person could not receive
within the territory of the Member State where the fund is
established the treatment appropriate to his condition. However,
authorisation may be refused on that ground only if treatment
which is the same or equally effective for the patient can be
obtained without undue delay in the territory of the Member
State in which he resides.

(1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 23 October 2003

in Case C-191/01 P: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v
Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (1)

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 — Absolute ground for refusal to register —
Distinctive character — Marks consisting exclusively of
descriptive signs or indications — Doublemint)

(2003/C 304/03)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-191/01 P, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: V. Melgar
and S. Laitinen), with an address for service in Luxembourg,
supported by Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: A. Dittrich
and B. Muttelsee-Schön) with an address for service in
Luxembourg, and by United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland (Agent: J. E. Collins, assisted by D. Alexander)
with an address for service in Luxembourg: Appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (Second Chamber) of 31 January 2001 in Case
T-193/99 Wrigley v OHIM (DOUBLEMINT) [2001] ECR II-
417, seeking to have that judgment set aside, in which the
Court of First Instance annulled the decision of the First Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 June 1999 (Case R
216/1998-1) dismissing the appeal brought by Wm. Wrig-
ley Jr. Company against the refusal to register the word
DOUBLEMINT as a Community trade mark, the other party to
the proceedings being: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, established
in Chicago, Illinois (United States of America), represented by
M. Kinkeldey, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, the Court, composed of: V. Skouris, President,
P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodri-
gues and A. Rosas (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,
A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen,
F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
given a judgment on 23 October 2003, in which it:

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities of 31 January 2001 in Case T-193/
99 Wrigley v OHIM (DOUBLEMINT);