Case C-489/23, Casa Județeană de Asigurări de Sănătate Mureș and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 1 August 2023 — AF v Guvernul României, Ministerul Sănătății, Casa Județeană de Asigurări de Sănătate Mureș
Date: 2023-08-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, compulsory insurance, health care, health expenditure, health service, hospitalisation, medical report, payment, principle of proportionality, residence








C_202401234EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1234


12.2.2024





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 1 August 2023 — AF v Guvernul României, Ministerul Sănătății, Casa Județeană de Asigurări de Sănătate Mureș
(Case C-489/23, Casa Județeană de Asigurări de Sănătate Mureș and Others)
(C/2024/1234)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant and appellant in the appeal on a point of law: AF


Defendants and respondents in the appeal on a point of law: Guvernul României, Ministerul Sănătății, Casa Județeană de Asigurări de Sănătate Mureș

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 49 and Article 56 TFEU and Article 7(7) of Directive 2011/24/EU (1) be interpreted as precluding legislation which automatically makes reimbursement of the costs incurred by a compulsorily insured person in the Member State of residence subject to a medical assessment carried out by a health professional providing health services under the health insurance system of that State and the subsequent issuing of a request for hospitalisation by that professional, without it being permissible to present equivalent medical documents issued by private medical establishments, even in a situation where the hospitalisation has taken place and the health service has been provided in a Member State other than that in which the insured person resides?










2.


Must Article 49 and Article 56 TFEU, Article 22(1)(c) of Regulation No 1408/71, (2) the principles of free movement of patients and services, as well as the principle of efficiency and the principle of proportionality, be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, where prior authorisation is not obtained, sets the amount of the recoverable services at the level of the costs which would have been borne by the Member State of residence, had the medical care been provided in its territory, using a calculation formula which limits the amount of that reimbursement significantly as compared with the costs actually incurred by the insured person in the Member State which provided the health services at issue?






(1)  Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare (OJ 2011 L 88, p. 45).

(2)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1234/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)