JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 18 March 2004 In Case C-8/02(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen):Ludwig Leichtle v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Freedom to provide services —Sickness insurance scheme for civil servants — Health cure taken in anotherMember State — Expenditure on board, lodging, travel, visitors tax and a finalmedical report — Conditions for reimbursement — Prior declaration of eligibilityfor assistance — Criteria — Justification)
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, health care, interpretation of the law, social-security benefit

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/5

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 1 April 2004

(Fifth Chamber)

18 March 2004

in Case C-1/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Privat-Molkerei Borgmann
Finanzgericht Düsseldorf):

GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Dortmund (1)

(Agriculture — Additional milk levy — Article 3(2) of Regu-
lation (EEC) No 536/93 — Annual statement of quantities of
milk delivered to the purchaser — Time-limit for notification
— Nature of time-limit — Penalties)

(2004/C 106/06)

(Language of the case: German)

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

(Germany)

In Case C-1/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by
for a preliminary
the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Privat-Molkerei Borgmann GmbH & Co. KG and Hauptzollamt
Dortmund, on the validity of
the second subparagraph of
Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9
March 1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of
the additional levy on milk and milk products (OJ 1993 L 57,
p. 12), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No
1001/98 of 13 May 1998 (OJ 1998 L 142, p. 22), the Court
(Sixth Chamber), V. Skouris, acting for the President of the
Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and
N. Colneric
Judges, A. Tizzano, Advocate
General, H. Von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment
on 1 April 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

(Rapporteur),

Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9
March 1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of
the additional levy on milk and milk products, as amended by
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1001/98 of 13 May 1998,
must be interpreted as meaning that milk purchasers comply
with the time-limit laid down in that provision where they
send the requisite information to the competent authority
before 15 May of the relevant year.

(1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.3002

In Case C-8/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen): Ludwig Leichtle v
Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (1)

(Freedom to provide services — Sickness insurance scheme
for civil servants — Health cure taken in another Member
State — Expenditure on board, lodging, travel, visitors tax
and a final medical report — Conditions for reimbursement
— Prior declaration of eligibility for assistance — Criteria —
Justification)

(2004/C 106/07)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-8/02: References to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen (Germany) for a preli-
minary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Ludwig Leichtle and Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, on
the interpretation of Articles 49 EC and 50 EC, the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, acting for the
President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur) and
S. von Bahr,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 March
2004, in which it has ruled:

1. Articles 49 EC and 50 EC are to be interpreted as meaning that
they preclude rules of a Member State, such as those at issue in
the main proceedings, under which reimbursement of expenditure
incurred on board, lodging, travel, visitors tax and the making of
a final medical report in connection with a health cure taken in
another Member State is conditional on obtaining prior recogni-
tion of eligibility, which is given only provided it is established, in
a report drawn up by a medical officer or a medical consultant,
that the proposed cure is absolutely necessary owing to the greatly
increased prospects of success in that other Member State.

C 106/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

2. Articles 49 EC and 50 EC are to be interpreted as meaning that
they do not in principle preclude rules of a Member State, such as
those at issue in the main proceedings, under which expenditure
incurred on board, lodging, travel, visitors tax and the making of
a final medical report in connection with a health cure, whether
taken in that Member State or in another Member State, is made
only where the health spa concerned is listed in the Register of
Health Spas. However, it is for the national court to ensure that
any conditions to which the registration of a health spa in such a
register may be subject are objective and do not have the effect of
making the provision of services between Member States more
difficult than the provision of services purely within the Member
State concerned.

3. Articles 49 EC and 50 EC are to be interpreted as meaning that
they preclude the application of national rules under which the
reimbursement of expenditure incurred on board, lodging, travel,
visitors tax and the making of a final medical report in connection
with a health cure taken in another Member State is precluded
where the person concerned has not awaited the conclusion of the
court proceedings brought against the decision refusing to recog-
nise that expenditure as eligible for assistance before commencing
the cure in question.

(1) OJ C 84 of 6.04.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 1 April 2004

(C-217/02)

and Others

court between Commune de Braine-le-Château (C-53/02),
Michel Tillieut
and Région
wallonne, interveners: BIFFA Waste Services SA (C-53/02),
Philippe Feron (C-53/02), Philippe De Codt (C-53/02) and
Propreté, Assainissement, Gestion de l'environnement SA
(PAGE) (C-217/02) – on the interpretation of Council Directive
75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39),
as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March
1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) – the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Sixth
Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet,
R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
J Mischo, Advocate
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 1 April 2004, in which it ruled:

Judges;

1) Article 7 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on
waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18
March 1991, must be interpreted to mean that the management
plan or plans which the competent authorities of the Member
States are required to draw up under that provision must include
either a geographical map specifying the exact location of waste
disposal sites or location criteria which are sufficiently precise to
enable the competent authority responsible for issuing a permit
under Article 9 of the Directive to determine whether the site or
installation in question falls within the management framework
provided for by the plan.

in Joined Cases C-53/02 and C-217/02 (reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat): Commune de
and
Braine-le-Château (C-53/02),

and Michel Tillieut

Others (C-217/02) (1)

2) Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive
91/156, must be interpreted as requiring Member States to draw
up waste management plans within a reasonable period, which
may go beyond the time-limit for transposing Directive 91/156
laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the latter.

(Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC — Waste —
Management plans — Suitable sites and installations for
waste disposal — Permit granted in the absence of a manage-
ment plan containing a map specifying planned locations for
disposal sites)

(2004/C 106/08)

(Language of the case: French)

3) Articles 4, 5 and 7 of Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive
91/156, read in conjunction with Article 9 thereof, must be inter-
preted as not precluding a Member State which has not adopted,
within the period prescribed, one or more waste management
plans relating to suitable sites or installations for waste disposal
from issuing individual permits to operate such sites and installa-
tions.

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

In Joined Cases C-53/02 and C-217/02 – references to the
Court under Article 234 EC by the Conseil d'État (Belgium) for
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that

(1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.

OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.