CELEX: C2006/060/36
Language: en
Date: 2006-03-11 00:00:00
Title: Case C-444/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinas by decision of that court of  30 December 2004  in Aikaterini Stamatelaki v Organismos Asfaliseos Eleftheron Epangelmation (O.A.E.E.)

11.3.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 60/18
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinas by decision of that court of 30 December 2004 in Aikaterini Stamatelaki v Organismos Asfaliseos Eleftheron Epangelmation (O.A.E.E.)
   (Case C-444/05)
   (2006/C 60/36)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinas of 30 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 14 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Aikaterini Stamatelaki and Organismos Asfaliseos Eleftheron Epangelmation (Insurance Institution for the Liberal Professions; O.A.E.E.), a legal person governed by public law, on the following questions:
   
               (A)
            
            
               Does a national rule which excludes in all circumstances reimbursement by a domestic insurance body of the cost of treatment of a person insured with it in a private hospital abroad except in cases concerning children up to the age of 14, while on the other hand providing for the possibility of reimbursement of the relevant cost if the treatment in question takes place in a public hospital abroad, following authorisation which is granted provided that the insured person cannot obtain appropriate treatment without undue delay from a hospital that has entered into an agreement with his insurance body, constitute a restriction on the principle of freedom to provide services within the Community which is enshrined in Article 49 et seq. of the EC Treaty?
            
         
               (B)
            
            
               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, can that restriction be regarded as dictated by overriding reasons in the general interest, such as in particular the need to avoid the risk of seriously undermining the financial balance of the Greek social security system, or the maintenance of a balanced hospital and medical service open to all?
            
         
               (C)
            
            
               If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, can a restriction of this nature be regarded as permissible in the sense that it is not contrary to the principle of proportionality, that is to say that it does not go beyond what is objectively necessary in order to attain the objective at which it is aimed and that the same result cannot be achieved by less restrictive rules?