CELEX: C2001/200/71
Language: en
Date: 2001-07-14 00:00:00
Title: Case C-156/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Centrale Raad van Beroep by order of 21 March 2001 in the disputes between R. P. van der Duin and ANOZ Zorgverzekeringen UA and ANOZ Zorgverzekeringen UA and T.W. van Wegberg-van Brederode

14.7.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 200/39
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Centrale Raad                Appeal brought on 12 April 2001 by the Federal Republic
van Beroep by order of 21 March 2001 in the disputes                   of Germany against the judgment delivered on 31 January
between R. P. van der Duin and ANOZ Zorgverzekering-                   2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
en UA and ANOZ Zorgverzekeringen UA and T.W. van                       of the European Communities in Case T-156/98 between
                   Wegberg-van Brederode                               RJB Mining PLC and Commission of the European Com-
                                                                       munities, supported by RAG Aktiengesellschaft and Fed-
                                                                                          eral Republic of Germany
                        (Case C-156/01)
                                                                                               (Case C-157/01 P)
                        (2001/C 200/71)
                                                                                                (2001/C 200/72)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 21 March 2001 by the
Centrale Raad van Beroep (Higher Social Security Court),               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001
which was received at the Court Registry on 10 April 2001,             by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
for a preliminary ruling in the disputes between R. P. van der         European Communities in Case T-156/98 RJB Mining PLC and
Duin and ANOZ Zorgverzekeringen UA, a mutual guarantee                 Commission of the European Communities, supported by
society, and ANOZ Zorgverzekeringen UA and T.W. van                    RAG Aktiengesellschaft and Federal Republic of Germany,
Wegberg-van Brederode on the following questions:                      was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                       Communities on 12 April 2001 by the Federal Republic of
                                                                       Germany, represented by Ministerialrat Wolf-Dieter Plessing,
1.   Does Article 22(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1)          Oberregierungsrat Dr Thomas Jürgensen, Bundesministerium
     also apply to (a member of the family of) a pensioner who         der Finanzen, and Martina Maier, Haarmann Hemmelrath,
     is entitled under Article 28 of Regulation No 1408/71 to          Paris.
     receive benefits from the institution of the place of
     residence, (in the present cases from the French or the
     Spanish sickness assurance funds respectively), those             The appellant
     benefits being chargeable to the institution competent in
     accordance with Article 28(2)(a) of Regulation                    1.    claims that the Court should set aside the judgment of
     No 1408/71, that is to say the Netherlands sickness                     the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2001
     assurance fund, in a situation in which the pensioner (or               [T-156/98 (1)] in so far as it held that the application was
     a member of his family) travels to the competent Member                 founded;
     State in order to receive medical treatment?
                                                                       2.    continues to seek the form of order sought at First
                                                                             Instance;
2.   If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, which insti-
     tution is responsible for granting the authorisation
                                                                       3.    claims that the applicant at First Instance should be
     referred to in Article 22(1)(c) of Regulation No 1408/71?
                                                                             ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
3.   If the answer to Question 1 is negative, do the provisions
     of Article 21 or those of Article 31 of Regulation
     No 1408/71 govern entitlement to benefits of (a member            Pleas in law and main arguments
     of the family) of a pensioner who is entitled under
     Article 28 of Regulation No 1408/71 to receive benefits
     from the institution of the place of residence, (in the           —     The Court of First Instance infringed Community law
     present cases from the French or the Spanish sickness                   because it declared the application admissible even
     assurance funds respectively), those benefits being charge-             though the applicant, not being in an actual or potential
     able to the institution competent in accordance with                    competitive position, cannot be regarded as individually
     Article 28(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, that is to say               concerned by the contested decision and because the
     the Netherlands sickness assurance fund, in a situation                 applicant, inter alia in view of the commitment given by
     where the person concerned is staying in the territory of               RAG in the framework of the merger, had no interest in
     the competent State?                                                    bringing proceedings.
                                                                       —     The CFI misapplied Article 66(2) of the ECSC Treaty in
                                                                             that it incorrectly assumed that the Commission, when
                                                                             carrying out the analysis of competition under
                                                                             Article 66(2) ECSC, could not fail to examine whether,
(1) OJ 1996 L 323, p. 38.
                                                                             and if so to what extent, the financial and thus economic
                                                                             whether, and if so to what extent, the financial and thus
                                                                             economic power of the merged entity was strengthened
                                                                             by all the elements which might constitute State aid,
                                                                             in particular, however, benefits which may have been
                                                                             contained in the DEM 1 purchase price for SBW.