CELEX: 62009CN0173
Language: en
Date: 2009-05-14 00:00:00
Title: Case C-173/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia — grad (Bulgaria). lodged on 14 May 2009 — Georgi Ivanov Elchinov v National Health Insurance Fund

1.8.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 180/28
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia — grad (Bulgaria). lodged on 14 May 2009 — Georgi Ivanov Elchinov v National Health Insurance Fund
   (Case C-173/09)
   2009/C 180/49
   Language of the case: Bulgarian
   
      Referring court
   
   Administrativen sad Sofia — grad
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Georgi Ivanov Elchinov
   
      Defendant: National Health Insurance Fund
   
      Interested party: Ministry of Health
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Is the second subparagraph of Article 22(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 (1) … to be interpreted as meaning that, where it is impossible to give in a Bulgarian healthcare institution the specific treatment that has been the subject of an application for the issue of form E 112, it is to be assumed that this treatment is not financed from the budget of the National Health Insurance Fund (NZOK) or the Ministry of Health and, conversely, where such treatment is financed from the budget of the NZOK or the Ministry of Health it is to be assumed that it can be given in a Bulgarian healthcare institution?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Is the phrase ‘the treatment in question cannot be provided for the person concerned within the territory of the Member State in which he resides’ in the second paragraph of Article 22(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to be interpreted as encompassing cases in which the treatment that is given in the territory of the Member State in which the insured person resides is much less effective and more radical than the treatment that is given in another Member State, or does it encompass only those cases in which the person concerned cannot be treated without undue delay?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Having regard to the principle of procedural autonomy: is the national court obliged to take account of binding directions given to it by a higher court when its decision is set aside and the case referred back for reconsideration if there is reason to assume that such directions are inconsistent with Community law?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               If the particular treatment concerned cannot be given on the territory of the Member State in which the person with medical insurance resides is it then sufficient, in order for that Member State to be obliged to issue authorisation for treatment in another Member State under Article 22(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, for the type of treatment concerned to be included within the benefits provided for under the legislation of the first mentioned Member State even if that legislation does not expressly stipulate the specific method of treatment?
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Are Article 49 EC and Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 inconsistent with a national provision such as Article 36(1) of the Law on health insurance, according to which persons insured under the compulsory scheme have the right to receive partially or in full the value of the expenses for medical care abroad only if they have received a preliminary permit?
            
         
               6.
            
            
               Must the national court oblige the competent institution of the State in which the patient has medical insurance to issue the document for treatment abroad (form E 112) if it considers the refusal to issue such a document to be unlawful, where the application for the issue of the document has been lodged before the treatment was carried out abroad and the treatment has been completed by the date on which the court decision is pronounced?
            
         
               7.
            
            
               If the aforementioned question should be answered in the affirmative and the court should consider the refusal of authorisation for treatment abroad to be unlawful how is the person with medical insurance to be reimbursed the costs of his treatment:
               
                           a)
                        
                        
                           directly by the State in which he is insured or by the State in which the treatment has been given, following submission of authorisation for treatment abroad;
                        
                     
                           b)
                        
                        
                           to what extent, if the range of benefits that are provided for under the legislation of the Member State where he resides should differ from the range of benefits provided for under the legislation of the Member State in which the treatment is given; in the light of Article 49 EC, which prohibits restrictions on freedom to provide services?
                        
                     
         
      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1974 L 148, p. 35) as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1)