CELEX: C2005/132/10
Language: en
Date: 2005-05-28 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 April 2005 in Case C-145/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n° 20 de Madrid: Heirs of Annette Keller v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) and Others (Social security — Articles 3 and 22 of Regulation No 1408/71 — Article 22 of Regulation No 574/72 — Hospital treatment in a Member State other than the competent Member State — Need for vital urgent treatment — Transfer of the insured person to a hospital institution in a non-member country — Scope of forms E 111 and E 112)

28.5.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 132/5
            
         
      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   
   (Grand Chamber)
   of 12 April 2005
   in Case C-145/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social no 20 de Madrid: Heirs of Annette Keller v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) and Others (1)
   
   (Social security - Articles 3 and 22 of Regulation No 1408/71 - Article 22 of Regulation No 574/72 - Hospital treatment in a Member State other than the competent Member State - Need for vital urgent treatment - Transfer of the insured person to a hospital institution in a non-member country - Scope of forms E 111 and E 112)
   (2005/C 132/10)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-145/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Juzgado de lo Social no 20 de Madrid (Spain), made by decision of 6 November 2001, received at the Court on 31 March 2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between the Heirs of Annette Keller and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Instituto Nacional de Gestión Sanitaria (Ingesa), formerly Instituto Nacional de la Salud (Insalud) — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur) and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, E. Juhász, G. Arestis and M. Ilešič, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   
               1.
            
            
               Article 22(1)(a)(i) and (c)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 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 and Article 22(1) and (3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71, both as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the competent institution has consented, by issuing a Form E 111 or Form E 112, to one of its insured persons receiving medical treatment in a Member State other than the competent Member State, it is bound by the findings as regards the need for urgent vitally necessary treatment made during the period of validity of the form by doctors authorised by the institution of the Member State of stay, and by the decision of those doctors, taken during that period on the basis of those findings and the current state of medical knowledge, to transfer the patient to a hospital establishment in another State, even if that State is a non-member country. However, in such a situation, in accordance with Article 22(1)(a)(i) and (c)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71, the insured person's right to the benefits in kind provided on behalf of the competent institution is subject to the condition that, under the legislation administered by the institution of the Member State of stay, that institution is obliged to provide persons insured with it with the benefits in kind corresponding to such treatment.
               In such circumstances, the competent institution is not entitled to require the person concerned to return to the competent Member State in order to undergo a medical examination there or to have him examined in the Member State of stay, nor to make the above findings and decisions subject to its approval.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Where doctors authorised by the institution of the Member State of stay have for reasons of vital urgency and in the light of current medical knowledge chosen to transfer the insured person to a hospital establishment in a non-member country, Article 22(1)(a)(i) and (c)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71 must be interpreted as meaning that the cost of the treatment provided in that State must be borne by the institution of the Member State of stay in accordance with the legislation administered by that institution, under the same conditions as those applicable to insured persons covered by that legislation. In the case of treatment which is among the benefits provided for by the legislation of the competent Member State, it is then for the institution of that State to bear the cost of the benefits thus provided, by reimbursing the institution of the Member State of stay under the conditions laid down in Article 36 of Regulation No 1408/71.
               Where the cost of the treatment provided in an establishment in a non-member country has not been assumed by the institution of the Member State of stay, but it is established that the person concerned was entitled to have the cost borne and the treatment is among the benefits provided for by the legislation of the competent Member State, it is for the competent institution to reimburse to that person or his heirs directly the cost of that treatment, so as to ensure a level of assumption of costs equivalent to that which that person would have enjoyed if the provisions of Article 22(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 had been applied.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.06.2003.