CELEX: C2000/020/15
Language: en
Date: 2000-01-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-385/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Centrale Raad van Beroep by order of that court of 6 October 1999 in the cases of 1. V.G. Müller-Faurd against Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappĳ O.Z. Zorgverzekeringen U.A. and 2. E.E.M van Riet against Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappĳ Z.A.O. Zorgverzekeringen

C 20/8                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22.1.2000
Tierzüchter mbH v Commission of the European Communi-                     3. Does the question whether the treatment as a whole or
ties, in which the Commission was requested to produce a                       only a proportion thereof involved in-patient care affect
certified true copy of certain minutes.                                        the answers to these questions?
                                                                          (1) — To ensure that provision of medical care by doctors and in
By order of 4 October 1999, the Court of Justice (Third                           hospitals is balanced and accessible to all.
Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and                  — To maintain the principle of benefits in kind applied in the
ordered the Commission to pay the costs.                                           Netherlands.
                                                                              — To ensure the financial equilibrium of the Netherlands social
                                                                                   security scheme.
                                                                          Appeal brought on 12 October 1999 by the Xunta de
                                                                          Galicia against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the
                                                                          Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Centrale Raad                   European Communities in Case T-194/95 between Area-
van Beroep by order of that court of 6 October 1999 in                    cova, S.A. and 31 Others and the Council of the European
the cases of 1. V.G. Müller-Faurd against Onderlinge                                                      Union
Waarborgmaatschappij O.Z. Zorgverzekeringen U.A. and
2. E.E.M van Riet against Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschap-
                  pij Z.A.O. Zorgverzekeringen                                                      (Case C-388/99 P)
                                                                                                      (2000/C 20/16)
                          (Case C-385/99)
                                                                          An appeal against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Third
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                           (2000/C 20/15)                                 Communities in Case T-194/95 between Areacova, S.A. and
                                                                          31 Others and the Council of the European Union was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    12 October 1999 by the Xunta de Galicia, represented by
European Communities by order of the Centrale Raad van                    Vı́ctor M. Vázquez-Portomeñe Seijas, Creus Carreras, of the
Beroep [Higher Social Security Court] of 6 October 1999,                  Santiago de Compostela Bar, with an address for service at the
received at the Court Registry on 11 October 1999, for a                  Fundación Galicia-Europa, Avenue Milcamps 105 B, 1030
preliminary ruling in the cases of 1. V.G. Müller-Fauré against           Brussels.
Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij O.Z. Zorgverzekeringen
U.A. and 2. E.E.M. van Riet against Onderlinge Waarborgmaat-              The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
schappij Z.A.O. Zorgverzekeringen on the following questions:
                                                                          1) Set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 8 July
                                                                               1999 in Case T-194/95 by reason of all or any of the
1. Are Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 49                    defects indicated and draw from the setting aside of that
     and 50 EC) to be interpreted as meaning that in principle                 order all legal consequences, either giving judgment on the
     a provision such as Article 9(4) of the Ziekenfondswet                    substance or referring the matter back to the Court of First
     [Law on Health Insurance], read in conjunction with                       Instance;
     Article 1 of the Regeling hulp in het buitenland zieken-
     fondsverzekering [Regulation on health care abroad under             2) Order the defendant before the Court of First Instance of
     the sickness insurance rules], is incompatible therewith in               the European Communities to pay the costs, at the same
     so far as it stipulates that in order to assert his entitlement           time giving a decision on the order for costs made against
     to benefits a person insured with a health insurance fund                 the defendant in the matter at first instance in the event of
     requires the prior authorisation of that fund to seek                     the present appeal being upheld wholly or in part.
     treatment from a person or establishment outside the
     Netherlands with whom or which the health insurance
     fund has not concluded an agreement?                                 Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          — Infringement of Community law involving misapplication
2. If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative, do              and misinterpretation of Article 230 (previously 173) as
     the objectives of the Netherlands system of benefits in kind              regards rejection of the allegation of misuse of powers
     referred to above (1) constitute an overriding reason in the              vitiating the contested regulation since there is a total
     general interest capable of justifying a restriction on the               divergence between the ostensible aim thereof and the aim
     fundamental principle of freedom to provide services?                     really pursued by its adoption.