CELEX: C2003/101/04
Language: en
Date: 2003-04-26 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 25 February 2003 in Case C-326/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis): Idryma Koinonikon Asfaliseon (IKA) v Vasilios Ioannidis (Social security — Hospital treatment of a pensioner during a stay in a Member State other than the State in which he resides — Conditions for funding — Articles 31 and 96 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 31 and 93 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72)

C 101/2                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              26.4.2003
Finland (Agent: T. Pynnä): Application for a declaration                     Articles 31 and 93 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of
that, by failing to classify special protection areas fully and              21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing
definitively, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its               Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, as amended and updated by
obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/              Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 3096/
409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds                    95, of Articles 56 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after
(OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed                   amendment, Articles 46 EC and 49 EC) and 60 of the EC
of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen                 Treaty (now Article 50 EC), and of Article 1 of the Protocol to
and C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), F. Macken and J.N. Cunha                        the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights
Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,              and Fundamental Freedoms, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rod-
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2003, in                   ríguez Iglesias, President, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and
which it:                                                                    C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
                                                                             D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann, V. Skouris,
(1) Declares that, by failing to classify fully and definitively the         F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
      SPAs in its territory, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil    Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
      its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive        Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
      79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild                 on 25 February 2003, in which it has ruled:
      birds.
(2) Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                             1.   Article 31 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, as amended and
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June
                                                                                  1983, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95
                                                                                  of 22 December 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that
                        of 25 February 2003
                                                                                  enjoyment of the benefits in kind guaranteed by that provision
                                                                                  to pensioners staying in a Member State other than their State
in Case C-326/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                              of residence is not subject to the condition that the illness which
from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis): Idryma                            necessitated the treatment in question manifested itself suddenly
     Koinonikon Asfaliseon (IKA) v Vasilios Ioannidis (1)                         during such a stay, making that treatment immediately
                                                                                  necessary. That provision therefore precludes a Member State
(Social security — Hospital treatment of a pensioner during                       from subjecting that enjoyment to such a condition.
a stay in a Member State other than the State in which he
resides — Conditions for funding — Articles 31 and 96 of
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 31 and 93 of
                   Regulation (EEC) No 574/72)
                           (2003/C 101/04)                                   2.   Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and
                                                                                  updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regu-
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                                lation No 3096/95, precludes a Member State from subjecting
                                                                                  the enjoyment of the benefits in kind guaranteed by that
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published            provision to any authorisation procedure.
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-326/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Diikitiko Protodikio Thessalonikis (Greece) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court              3.   The provision and funding of the benefits in kind referred to in
between Idryma Koinonikon Asfaliseon (IKA) and Vasilios                           Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and
Ioannidis on the interpretation of Articles 31 and 36 of                          updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regu-
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the                        lation No 3096/95, must normally take place in accordance
application of social security schemes to employed persons, to                    with the provisions of that article in conjunction with Article 36
self-employed persons and to members of their families                            of that regulation and Articles 31 and 93 of Council Regulation
moving within the Community, as amended and updated by                            (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ                            procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71,
1983 L 230, p. 6), as amended by Council Regulation (EC)                          as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as
No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995 (OJ 1995 L 335, p. 10), of                         amended by Regulation No 3096/95.
 ---pagebreak--- 26.4.2003                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 101/3
4.    Where it appears that the institution of the place of stay has           before that court between Santex SpA and Unità Socio
      wrongly refused to provide the benefits in kind referred to in           Sanitaria Locale n. 42 di Pavia, interveners: Sca Mölnlycke
      Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and                      SpA, Artsana SpA and Fater SpA, on the interpretation of
      updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regu-                    Article 22 of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993
      lation No 3096/95, and the institution of the place of                   coordinating procedures for the award of public supply
      residence, on being advised of that refusal, has declined to             contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1) and Article 6(2) EU, the Court
      contribute, as it is obliged to, to facilitating the correct             (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of
      application of that provision, it is for the latter institution,         the Chamber, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris (Rapporteur),
      without prejudice to the possible liability of the institution of        F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
      the place of stay, to reimburse directly to the insured person the       General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
      cost of the treatment he has had to bear, so as to guarantee him         has given a judgment on 27 February 2003, in which it has
      a level of funding equivalent to that which he would have                ruled:
      enjoyed had the provisions of that article been complied with.
                                                                               Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the
5.    In the latter case, Articles 31 and 36 of Regulation No 1408/            coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
      71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as                  relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public
      amended by Regulation No 3096/95, and Articles 31 and 93                 supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive
      of Regulation No 574/72, as amended and updated by                       92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of
      Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation                          procedures for the award of public service contracts, must be
      No 3096/95, preclude national legislation from subjecting                interpreted as imposing on the competent national courts, where it is
      such reimbursement to the obtaining of ex post facto authoris-           established that, by its conduct, a contracting authority has rendered
      ation which is granted only in so far as it is shown that the            impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of the rights conferred
      illness which necessitated the treatment in question manifested          by the Community legal order on a national of the Union who has
      itself suddenly during the stay, making that treatment immedi-           been harmed by a decision of that contracting authority, an obligation
      ately necessary.                                                         to allow as admissible pleas in law alleging that the notice of
                                                                               invitation to tender is incompatible with Community law, which are
                                                                               put forward in support of an application for review of that decision,
( 1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.                                                   by availing itself, where appropriate, of the possibility afforded by
                                                                               national law of disapplying national rules on limitation periods,
                                                                               under which, when the period prescribed for bringing proceedings for
                                                                               review of the notice of invitation to tender has expired, it is no longer
                                                                               possible to plead such incompatibility.
                                                                               (1 ) OJ C 36 of 4.11.2000.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 27 February 2003
                                                                                                          (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-327/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia):                                              of 27 February 2003
Santex SpA v Unità Socio Sanitaria Locale n. 42 di Pavia (1)
                                                                               in Case C-373/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                               the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien): Adolf Truley
(Directive 93/36/EEC — Public supply contracts — Directive                                   GmbH v Bestattung Wien GmbH ( 1)
89/665/EEC — Review procedures applicable to public
 contracts — Limitation period — Principle of effectiveness)                   (Directive 93/36/EEC — Public supply contracts — Concept
                                                                               of ‘contracting authority’ — Public-law body — Funeral
                            (2003/C 101/05)                                                                 undertaking)
                                                                                                          (2003/C 101/06)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                   in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-327/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                     In Case C-373/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia                  EC by the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien (Austria) for
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                    a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that