CELEX: C2003/304/02
Language: en
Date: 2003-12-13 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 October 2003 in Case C-56/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des Affaires de sécurité sociale de Nanterre): Patricia Inizan v Caisse primaire d'assurance maladie des Hauts-de-Seine (Social security — Freedom to provide services — Costs of hospital stay to be incurred in another Member State — Conditions of reimbursement — Prior authorisation — Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Validity)

13.12.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 304/1
                                                                          I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                                       (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 2 October 2003
in Case C-195/99 P: Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG v Com-                                                    of 23 October 2003
         mission of the European Communities( (1))
(Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European                      in Case C-56/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                        producers of beams)                                  the Tribunal des Affaires de sécurité sociale de Nanterre):
                                                                             Patricia Inizan v Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie des
                          (2003/C 304/01)                                                            Hauts-de-Seine( (1))
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             (Social security — Freedom to provide services — Costs of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       hospital stay to be incurred in another Member State —
                   in the European Court Reports)                            Conditions of reimbursement — Prior authorisation —
                                                                               Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Validity)
In Case C-195/99 P, Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG, established in
Dortmund (Germany), (represented by F. Montag): Appeal                                                 (2003/C 304/02)
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Compo-
sition) of 11 March 1999 in Case T-147/94 Krupp Hoesch v                                         (Language of the case: French)
Commission [1999] ECR II-603, seeking to have that judgment
set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: Commission
of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils,                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
assisted by H.-J. Freund), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                                  in the European Court Reports)
of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward,
A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges;
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
2 October 2003, in which it:                                                 In Case C-56/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                             by the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Nanterre
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                  (France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                             before that court between Patricia Inizan and Caisse primaire
2.    Orders Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG to pay the costs.                         d’assurance maladie des Hauts-de-Seine on the validity and
                                                                             interpretation of Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
(1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
                                                                             of the Council 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
 ---pagebreak--- C 304/2                  EN                              Official Journal of the European Union                                        13.12.2003
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1),
and on the interpretation of Articles 49 EC and 50 EC, the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans,
President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of                                            of 23 October 2003
the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann, S. von
Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2003, in which it                       in Case C-191/01 P: Office for Harmonisation in the
has ruled:                                                                       Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v
                                                                                                  Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (1)
                                                                                 (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC)
1.    Consideration of the first part of the question has disclosed no           No 40/94 — Absolute ground for refusal to register —
      factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 22(1)(c)(i)     Distinctive character — Marks consisting exclusively of
      of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June                          descriptive signs or indications — Doublemint)
      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, as amended and
      updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December                                          (2003/C 304/03)
      1996.
                                                                                                    (Language of the case: English)
2.    The second subparagraph of Article 22(2) of Regulation
      No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/
      97, must be interpreted as meaning that the authorisation to
      which that provision refers may not be refused where it is
      apparent, first, that the treatment in question is among the
      benefits provided for by the legislation of the Member State on            In Case C-191/01 P, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      whose territory the person concerned resides and, secondly, that           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: V. Melgar
      treatment which is the same or equally effective cannot be                 and S. Laitinen), with an address for service in Luxembourg,
      obtained without undue delay in that Member State.                         supported by Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: A. Dittrich
                                                                                 and B. Muttelsee-Schön) with an address for service in
                                                                                 Luxembourg, and by United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                                 Northern Ireland (Agent: J. E. Collins, assisted by D. Alexander)
3.    Articles 49 EC and 50 EC must be interpreted as not precluding             with an address for service in Luxembourg: Appeal against the
      legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main           judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
      proceedings, which, first, makes reimbursement of the cost of              Communities (Second Chamber) of 31 January 2001 in Case
      hospital care provided in a Member State other than that in                T-193/99 Wrigley v OHIM (DOUBLEMINT) [2001] ECR II-
      which the insured person’s sickness fund is established con-               417, seeking to have that judgment set aside, in which the
      ditional upon prior authorisation by that fund and, secondly,              Court of First Instance annulled the decision of the First Board
      makes the grant of that authorisation subject to the condition             of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      that it be established that the insured person could not receive           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 June 1999 (Case R
      within the territory of the Member State where the fund is                 216/1998-1) dismissing the appeal brought by Wm. Wrig-
      established the treatment appropriate to his condition. However,           ley Jr. Company against the refusal to register the word
      authorisation may be refused on that ground only if treatment              DOUBLEMINT as a Community trade mark, the other party to
      which is the same or equally effective for the patient can be              the proceedings being: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, established
      obtained without undue delay in the territory of the Member                in Chicago, Illinois (United States of America), represented by
      State in which he resides.                                                 M. Kinkeldey, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service in
                                                                                 Luxembourg, the Court, composed of: V. Skouris, President,
                                                                                 P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodri-
                                                                                 gues and A. Rosas (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,
                                                                                 A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen,
                                                                                 F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
(1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.                                                        Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
                                                                                 given a judgment on 23 October 2003, in which it:
                                                                                 1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                                       European Communities of 31 January 2001 in Case T-193/
                                                                                       99 Wrigley v OHIM (DOUBLEMINT);