CELEX: C2000/335/53
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-326/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Protodikio Thessalonikis (First Chamber, Three Judges) by judgment of that court of 31 January 2000 in the case of Idrima Kinonikon Asfalision against Vasilios Ioannidis

C 335/30               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25.11.2000
—    Absence in the Netherlands action programme of pro-                    IKA’s Medical Committee of Appeal, is consistent with
     visions concerning the limitation of the land application              the provisions set out above of Articles 31 and 36
     of fertilisers based on a balance between (a) the foreseeable          of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council and
     nitrogen requirements of the crops and (b) the nitrogen                Articles 31 and 93 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the
     supply to the crops from the soil and from fertilisation               Council since, even if it were accepted that those pro-
     (Article 5(4)(a) in conjunction with point 1(3) of                     visions in principle confer on the Member States discre-
     Annex III to the directive);                                           tion — in respect of benefits including sickness benefits
                                                                            in kind to pensioners temporarily staying in the territory
—    Absence in the Netherlands action programme of                         of a Member State other than the one in which they reside,
     measures ensuring that the amount of livestock manure                  which benefits must be considered also to comprise the
     applied to the land each year does not exceed the amount               provision of hospital treatment — to enact provisions
     per hectare prescribed by the directive (Article 5(4)(a) in            establishing as an additional condition for the refund of
     conjunction with point 2 of Annex III to the directive);               the costs relating to the benefits the, albeit ex post facto,
                                                                            authorisation of those costs, it is in any event not entirely
—    Absence in the Netherlands action programme of                         clear and free from doubt whether they additionally allow
     measures relating to points which should have been                     the Member States to enact provisions establishing as a
     covered in the code of good agricultural practice                      necessary condition for the grant of such authorisation
     (Article 5(4)(b) in conjunction with Annex III to the                  that requirements be met similar to those laid down in
     directive and Article 4(1)(a) in conjunction with Annex II             the aforementioned provision of the IKA Regulations at
     to the directive);                                                     issue, that is to say requirements which are related to the
                                                                            immediate need for provision of hospital treatment;
—    Absence in the Netherlands action programme of any
     additional or reinforced measures relating to dry, sandy          (b) whether, on the basis that services comprising the
     soil (Article 5(5) of the directive).                                  provision of care within hospitals constitute services
                                                                            within the meaning of Article 60 of the EC Treaty, the
(1) OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1.                                                    aforementioned provision of the IKA Regulations, even if
                                                                            it were considered, to the extent referred to above, not to
                                                                            be contrary to the above provisions of the Council
                                                                            Regulations, is consistent to that extent with Articles 59
                                                                            and 60 of the EC Treaty;
                                                                       (c)  if Question (b) is answered in the negative, whether the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko                         rule laid down by that provision of the IKA Regulations
Protodikio Thessalonikis (First Chamber, Three Judges)                      is justified on grounds of public health which are related
by judgment of that court of 31 January 2000 in the case                    to the provision of a balanced hospital service accessible
of Idrima Kinonikon Asfalision against Vasilios Ioannidis                   to everybody resident within Greece and therefore falls
                                                                            within the exceptions in Article 56 of the EC Treaty;
                         (Case C-326/00)
                                                                       (d) whether, on the basis that the entitlement to sickness
                                                                            benefits in kind and, by extension, the claim for refund
                         (2000/C 335/53)
                                                                            of the costs relating to them constitute ‘possessions’
                                                                            within the meaning of Article 1 of the Protocol to the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
European Communities by judgment of the Diikitiko Protodi-                  and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Paris on 20 March
kio Thessalonikis (Administrative Court of First Instance,                  1952, the aforementioned provision of the IKA Regu-
Thessaloniki) (First Chamber, Three Judges) of 31 January                   lations — even if it were considered that to the extent
2000, received at the Court Registry on 4 September 2000 for                referred to above it is not contrary to the aforementioned
a preliminary ruling in the case of the Idrima Kinonikon                    provisions of the Council Regulations and of the EC
Asfalision (Social Security Institution; ‘IKA’) against Vasilios            Treaty, or, that is to say on the contrary basis, that it is
Ioannidis on the following questions:                                       justified in accordance with the matters previously set
                                                                            out — is consistent to that extent with the first paragraph
(a)  whether Article 3a(4)(g) of the Hospital Care Regulations              of Article 1 of the Protocol; and
     of the IKA, in the version in force at the time of the
     defendant’s hospital treatment, to the extent that it laid
                                                                       (e)  if Question (d) is answered in the negative, whether the
     down as an additional requirement, before the IKA may
                                                                            rule laid down by the aforementioned provision of the
     in very exceptional cases — namely in cases where a
                                                                            IKA Regulations is justified on grounds of public interest
     particular illness of the pensioner of the IKA seeking
                                                                            which are connected with preservation of the financial
     their refund manifested itself suddenly while he was
                                                                            stability of the social security system and therefore falls
     temporarily staying abroad or he was transferred there
                                                                            within the exceptions in the second paragraph of Article 1
     urgently in order to avert a real risk to his life — refund
                                                                            of that Protocol.
     the costs of treatment which has already taken place in
     hospital abroad, that the director of the competent
     regional branch of the IKA must grant the related
     authorisation after an opinion has been given by the