CELEX: C1999/226/19
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-07 00:00:00
Title: Case C-157/99: References for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Roermond, by order of that court of 28 April 1999 in the case of B.S.M. Smits-Geraets against Stichting Ziekenfonds VGZ, and H.T.M. Peerbooms against Stichting CZ Groep Zorgverzekeringen

C 226/12              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.8.1999
References for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondisse-                  2. If the requirement to obtain authorisation constitutes a
mentsrechtbank, Roermond, by order of that court of                         barrier to the freedom to provide services enshrined in
28 April 1999 in the case of B.S.M. Smits-Geraets against                   Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty, are the overriding
Stichting Ziekenfonds VGZ, and H.T.M. Peerbooms                             reasons in the general interest relied or by the defendants
      against Stichting CZ Groep Zorgverzekeringen                          (inter alia, in the letter cited above of 14 July 1998)
                                                                            sufficient in order for the barrier to be regarded as justified?
                        (Case C-157/99)
                        (1999/C 226/19)
                                                                        Action brought on 30 April 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities against the French Republic
References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Arrondissementsrecht-
bank (District Court), Roermond, of 28 April 1999, received                                      (Case C-160/99)
at the Court Registry on 30 April 1999, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of B.S.M. Smits-Geraets v Stichting Zieken-
fonds VGZ, and H.T.M. Peerbooms v Stichting CZ Groep                                             (1999/C 226/20)
Zorgverzekeringen, on the following questions:
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 April
1.                                                                      1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser, and Bernard
                                                                        Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
                                                                        for service in luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
    (a) Must Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty be interpreted         Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
        as meaning that a provision such as Article 9(4) of the
        ZFW in conjunction with Article 1 of the rules on               The Commission of the European Communities claims that
        health care abroad under the sickness assurance scheme          the Court should:
        is inconsistent with those Treaty provisions where the
        national rules cited provide that a person insured under
        the sickness assurance fund requires prior authorisation        1. declare that in making no change as regards Community
        from the sickness assurance fund in order to seek his               shipowners covered by Article 1(1) of Council Regulation
        entitlement to benefits from a person or establishment              (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the
        outside the Netherlands?                                            principle of freedom to provide services to maritime
                                                                            transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (1) to
                                                                            Article 257(1) of the Code des Douanes (Customs Code)
                                                                            of 11 May 1977, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                            obligations under that regulation;
    (b) What is the answer to Question 1(a) where the
        authorisation referred to therein is refused, or does not
        apply, because the relevant treatment in the other              2. order the French Republic to pay the costs.
        member State is not regarded ’as normal in professional
        circles’ and thus is deemed not to constitute a benefit
        within the meaning of Article 8 of the legislation on
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
        sickness assurance funds (ZFW)? Does it make any
        difference in that connection whether regard is had
        solely to the conceptions of Netherlands professional           Even though Regulation 3577/92 has direct effect, the continu-
        circles and whether national or international scientific        ance in force of Article 257(1) of the Customs Code, which
        yardsticks are applied and, if so, in what respect? Is          reserves transport between the ports of metropolitan France
        it also relevant whether the relevant treatment is              to ships flying the national flag, creates a situation of legal
        reimbursed under the social security system provided            uncertainty and ambiguity, leaving the persons concerned in
        for under the law of that other Member state?                   doubt as to whether they can invoke Community law. The
                                                                        fact that the competent authorities of the State’s regional
                                                                        administration were notified of the regulation does not
                                                                        eliminate the infringement.
    (c) What is the answer to question 1(a) where the treat-
        ment abroad is deemed to be normal and therefore to
        constitute a benefit but the requisite authorisation is         (1) OJ 1992 L 364, 12.12.1992, p. 7.
        refused on the ground that timely and adequate care
        can be obtained from a contracted Netherlands care
        provider and treatment abroad is therefore not neces-
        sary for the health care of the person concerned?