CELEX: C2001/275/07
Language: en
Date: 2001-09-29 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 May 2001 in Case C-311/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Roma): Criminal proceedings against Armando Caterino (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 75/442/EEC — Waste — Transport, on a professional basis — Obligation to register — Possibility of relying on a directive as against an individual)

C 275/4                    EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          29.9.2001
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    —     authorisation can be refused on the ground of lack of medical
                                                                                  necessity only if the same or equally effective treatment can be
                                                                                  obtained without undue delay at an establishment having a
                              of 12 July 2001
                                                                                  contractual arrangement with the insured person’s sickness
                                                                                  insurance fund.
in Case C-157/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the        Arrondissementsrechtbank               te    Roermond):
B.S.M. Geraets-Smits v Stichting Ziekenfonds VGZ and
H.T.M. Peerbooms v Stichting CZ Groep Zorgverzeker-                         (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                  ingen (1)
(Freedom to provide services — Articles 59 of the EC Treaty
(now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) and 60 of the EC
Treaty (now Article 50 EC) — Sickness insurance — System
providing benefits in kind — System of agreements —
Hospital treatment costs incurred in another Member State
       — Prior authorisation — Criteria — Justification)
                                                                                                 ORDER OF THE COURT
                             (2001/C 275/06)
                                                                                                     (Second Chamber)
                       (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                   of 29 May 2001
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      in Case C-311/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                      in the European Court Reports)                        the Tribunale di Roma): Criminal proceedings against
                                                                                                    Armando Caterino (1)
In Case C-157/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arrondissements-                75/442/EEC — Waste — Transport, on a professional basis
rechtbank te Roermond (District Court, Roermond) Nether-                    — Obligation to register — Possibility of relying on a
lands for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                                   directive as against an individual)
before that court between B.S.M. Geraets-Smits and Stichting
Ziekenfonds VGZ and between H.T.M. Peerbooms and Sticht-                                               (2001/C 275/07)
ing CZ Groep Zorgverzekeringen — on the interpretation of
Articles 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
EC) and 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) — the Court;
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann,               (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet and V. Skouris                                          in the European Court; Reports)
(Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,
P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; D. Ruiz-            In Case C-311/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,                EC from the Tribunale di Roma (Italy) for a preliminary ruling
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 July 2001, in                 the criminal proceedings pending before that court against
which it has ruled:                                                         Armando Caterino, on the interpretation of Article 12 of
                                                                            Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ
                                                                            1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive
Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)           91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) — the
and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) do not preclude         Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris (Rapporte-
legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main            ur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric,
proceedings, which makes the assumption of the costs of treatment           Judges; S. Alber; Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
provided in a hospital located in another Member State subject to           made an order on 29 May 2001, the operative part of which
prior authorisation from the insured person’s sickness insurance fund       is as follows:
and the grant of such authorisation subject to the condition that
(i) the treatment must be regarded as ‘normal in the professional
circles concerned’, a criterion also applied in determining whether         A directive cannot by itself, and independently of a national law of a
hospital treatment provided on national territory is covered, and           Member State adopted with a view to its application, have the effect
(ii) the insured person’s medical treatment must require that               of determining or aggravating the criminal liability of persons who
treatment. However, that applies only in so far as                          act in breach of its provisions.
—      the requirement that the treatment must be regarded as ‘normal’
       is construed to the effect that authorisation cannot be refused      (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
       on that ground where it appears that the treatment concerned is
       sufficiently tried and tested by international medical science,
       and