Case C-466/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cantabria, Santander (Spain)) — Servicio Cántabro de Salud v Servicio Cántabro de Salud (Social security — Hospital costs incurred in another Member State — Travel, accommodation and subsistence costs — Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)
Date: 2006-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU national, civil servant, health care, interpretation of the law, pay, social security

C 190/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.8.2006

accounts of customs duties which were not collected due to an omis-
sion on the part of an importer acting in good faith to declare royal-
ties which should have been incorporated in the customs value of the
imported goods.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 June 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Superior de Justicia de Cantabria, Santander (Spain)) —
Servicio Cántabro de Salud v Servicio Cántabro de Salud

(Case C-466/04) (1)

(1) OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.

security — Hospital

incurred in another
(Social
Member State — Travel, accommodation and subsistence
costs — Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)

costs

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2006
— Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom
of Sweden

(Case C-459/04) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Social
policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers —
Directive 89/391/EEC — Capabilities and aptitudes of
persons designated to carry out activities related to protection
against and prevention of occupational hazards in undertak-
ings)

(2006/C 190/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cantabria, Santander

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Manuel Acereda Herrera

Respondent: Servicio Cántabro de Salud

(2006/C 190/06)

Language of the case: Swedish

Re:

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: H. Kreppel, J. Enegren and V. Kreuschitz, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Kruse and
K. Wistrand, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incomplete
transposition of Article 7(8) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC
of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage
improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ
1989 L 183, p. 1) — Definitions of capabilities and aptitudes
of workers designated by the employer to carry out activities
related to protection against and prevention of occupational
hazards in undertakings

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the

Kingdom of Sweden to pay their own costs.

(1) OJ C 45, 19.02.2005.

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de
Justicia de Cantabria, Santander — Interpretation of Article
22(1)(c) and (2) and Article 36 of Council Regulation (EEC) No
1408/71 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 (OJ 1997 L 28, p.1) — Reimbursement of
expenses for travel, stay and subsistence by the institution
which granted authorisation for treatment abroad — Articles
10 EC and 249 EC — Compatibility with Community law of
national
to those
legislation recognising rights additional
conferred by Article 27 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended
— Freedom to provide services — Discrimination based on
nationality — Compatibility of national legislation with Articles
81 EC, 82 EC and 87 EC

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Article 22(1)(c) and (2) and Article 36 of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
to self-employed persons
security schemes to 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, must be interpreted as meaning that
authorisation by the competent institution for an insured person to
go to another Member State in order there to receive hospital
treatment appropriate to his medical condition does not confer on
such a person the right to be reimbursed by the competent institu-
tion for the costs of travel, accommodation and subsistence which
that person and any person accompanying him incurred in the
territory of that latter Member State, with the exception of the
costs of accommodation and meals in hospital
for the insured
person himself.

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/5

2. National legislation in which provision is made for entitlement to
benefits additional to those provided for in Article 22(1) of Regu-
lation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation
No 118/97, in the situation covered by paragraph (1)(a) of that
article, but not in that covered by paragraph (1)(c) thereof, does
not obstruct the direct effect of that provision or infringe the prin-
ciple of cooperation in good faith stemming from Article 10 EC.

(1) OJ C 19, 22.01.2005.

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor
het bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Council Directive
85/511/EEC of 18 November 1985 introducing Community
measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease (OJ 1985 L
315, p. 11) — Article 11(1), first indent, Article 13(1), second
indent, and Annex B — Direct effect — Laboratory not listed
in Annex B — National authorities' discretion

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven –Netherlands) — G.J.
Dokter, Maatschap Van den Top, W. Boekhout v Minister
van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-28/05) (1)

(Agriculture — Control of foot-and-mouth disease — Direc-
tive 85/511/EEC — Directive 90/425/EEC — Examinations
to detect foot-and mouth-disease carried out by a laboratory
not listed in the annex to Directive 85/511/EEC — National
authorities' discretion — Principle of proportionality — Prin-
ciple of respect for the rights of the defence)

(2006/C 190/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby rules:

1. Council Directive 85/511/EEC of 18 November 1985 intro-
ducing Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth
disease, as amended by Council Directive 90/423/EEC of 26 June
1990, must be interpreted as meaning that changes to the parti-
culars of a laboratory included in Annex B to that directive, which
were not entered in accordance with the procedure provided for in
Article 17 of the directive,
lead to that laboratory's losing its
status as a laboratory included in that annex only if those changes
are likely to have repercussions on the safety of the laboratory as
regards the risk of dissemination of
the foot-and-mouth virus
during the examinations performed by the laboratory and thus
increase the risk of contamination of susceptible local animals.
Moreover, Directive 85/511 does not preclude a Member State
from taking the measures
foot-and-mouth disease
provided for in Article 10(1) of Council Directive 90/425/EEC of
26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks
applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and
products with a view to the completion of the internal market on
the basis of results of an examination carried out by a laboratory
which is not included in Annex B to Directive 85/511.

to control

2. The competent authority is required to follow up the results of
examinations provided by a laboratory which has the status of a
laboratory listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511 and to adopt,
in principle, the measures provided for in that directive or any
other measure required, given the need to control foot-and-mouth
disease promptly and effectively. The
competent authority is
required to take into consideration even results provided by a
laboratory which does not have that status in order to adopt,
where necessary, the appropriate measures provided for by Com-
munity legislation. However, as that laboratory no longer necessa-
rily offers the same guarantees of reliability as a laboratory having
the competent
the status of a laboratory listed in Annex B,
authority must make sure, before taking the appropriate measures,
that those results are reliable. In any event, the authority may
adopt measures to control foot-and-mouth disease only in compli-
ance with the general principles of Community law, including in
particular the principle of proportionality and fundamental rights.

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: G.J. Dokter, Maatschap Van den Top, W. Boekhout

(1) OJ C 93, 16.04.2005.

Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit