Case C-208/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Landessozialgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 April 2007 — Petra von Chamier-Glisczinki v Deutsche Angestellten-Krankenkasse
Date: 2007-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: family benefit, free movement of workers, health care, interpretation of the law, social security legislation, social-security benefit

7.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/11

The Hellenic Republic submits that the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities misinterpreted Article 15 of the
initial memorandum of understanding in holding that, prior to
signature of the additional memorandum, an agreement was
implicitly concluded by the partners on 24 February 1997 to
implement the project and in this way Article 15(1) essentially
was set aside or was amended.

Action brought on 20 April 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-211/07)

(2007/C 155/21)

Language of the case: English

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches
Landessozialgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 April 2007 —
Chamier-Glisczinki
Deutsche
Petra
Angestellten-Krankenkasse

von

v

(Case C-208/07)

(2007/C 155/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerisches Landessozialgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Petra von Chamier-Glisczinki

Respondent: Deutsche Angestellten-Krankenkasse

Questions referred

1. Should Article 19(1)(a) — in conjunction, as the case may
be, with Article 19(2) — of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1)
be interpreted in the light of Article 18 EC and Articles 39 EC
in conjunction with Article 10 of Regulation
and 49 EC,
(EEC) No 1612/68 (2), as meaning that an employed or self-
employed person, or a member of that person's family, may
not receive any cash benefits or reimbursement provided on
behalf of the competent institution by the institution of the
place of residence, if there is provision under the law applic-
able to the institution of the place of residence for persons
insured by that institution to receive only cash benefits, and
not benefits in kind?

2. If there is no such entitlement to benefits in kind, is there, in
the light of Article 18 EC, or Articles 39 EC and 49 EC, any
entitlement to payment — subject to prior approval — by
the competent institution of the costs of in-patient care in a
care home situated in another Member State, in the amount
of the benefits payable in the competent Member State?

(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416.
(2) OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475.

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: N. Yerrell, Agent)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that in maintaining in force Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of
the Motor Insurance Agreement of 31st May 2004 and in
particular by i) excluding compensation to users of vehicles
if all vehicles involved are uninsured, and ii) limiting the
right to compensation in respect of persons in an uninsured
vehicle which did not cause the damage or injury,
the
Republic of Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30th December 1983 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor
vehicles, and in particular Article 1(4), third subparagraph
thereof, and

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Section 5.3 of the Agreement between the Minister of Transport
and the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland of 31st May 2004
(‘the Agreement’) provides for the exclusion of compensation
for all drivers of uninsured vehicles, whether causing the acci-
dent or not), and thus goes beyond the permitted scope of the
exclusion laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 1(4) of
the directive.

As regards the situation of passengers travelling in uninsured
vehicles, section 5.2 of the Agreement provides for a general
exclusion from compensation in all cases where the injured
person ‘knew or ought reasonably to have known that there was not
in force an approved policy of insurance’. All passengers in unin-
sured vehicles are accordingly treated identically, regardless of
whether they were travelling in the vehicle causing the damage
or injury or not. This is in clear contradiction with the wording
of the third subparagraph of Article 1(4) of the directive, which