CELEX: E2008P0001
Language: en
Date: 2008-01-16 00:00:00
Title: Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett in the Case of Therese Slinning v the Norwegian State represented by the Board of Exemptions and Appeals for Treatment Abroad (Case E-1/08)

8.5.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 113/16
            
         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett in the Case of Therese Slinning v the Norwegian State represented by the Board of Exemptions and Appeals for Treatment Abroad
   (Case E-1/08)
   (2008/C 113/13)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 16 January 2008 from Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 21 January 2008, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Therese Slinning v the State represented by the Board of Exemptions and Appeals for Treatment Abroad, on the following questions:
   
               1.
            
            
               Is it compatible with Articles 36 and 37 of the EEA Agreement and Article 22 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to refuse coverage of expenses for treatment abroad which according to international medicine must be considered experimental or test treatment, when there is no entitlement to such treatment in the home State?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Is it of significance for the answer to Question No 1 that the method of treatment in question must be considered to be implemented in the home State or the home State is considering its implementation in the future?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Is it compatible with Articles 36 and 37 of the EEA Agreement to refuse coverage of expenses for hospital treatment abroad if the patient in the home State can receive an offer of adequate medical treatment assessed according to accepted international methods within a medically justifiable time limit?
               Is it of significance for the answer to this question that:
               
                           (a)
                        
                        
                           coverage of such expenses may be refused even if the treatment abroad is considered as possibly more advanced than the treatment in the home State?
                        
                     
                           (b)
                        
                        
                           the patient, having decided to receive treatment abroad rather than an adequate treatment in the home State, does not get coverage for the costs of treatment abroad to the same extent as the treatment offered in the home State would have cost?
                        
                     
         
               4.
            
            
               Is it of significance for the answers to the questions above whether:
               
                           (a)
                        
                        
                           the patient as a matter of fact has not been offered the treatment in question in the home State which can be considered adequate treatment?
                        
                     
                           (b)
                        
                        
                           the treatment given abroad actually led to an improvement of the specific patient's state of health?