natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Agter Kommissionens formand eller et medlem af Kommissionen at rejse til Tjetjenien, inden Kommissionens mandat udløber, for at indsamle alle de nødvendige oplysninger for at definere et ekstraordinært EU-initiativ, som helt konkret kan afhjælpe den menneskelige tragedie, der udspiller sig i dette land?
Does the President or a Member of the Commission plan to visit Chechnya before the end of the present Commission's term of office in order to gather all the information necessary for framing an extraordinary Union initiative capable of providing practical answers to the humanitarian tragedy taking place there?
Hvilke konkrete foranstaltninger agter Kommissionen omsider at træffe for at yde effektiv bistand til de tjetjenske børn, der står over for en sundhedsmæssig katastrofe?
In particular, what specific measures does the Commission at long last plan to take in order to provide effective help for Chechen children who are facing a disastrous situation in terms of health?
Agter Kommissionen at anbefale medlemsstaterne, at der vedtages en fælles aktion med det formål at organisere en ekstraordinær humanitær operation, således at tusindvis af tjetjenske børn med særlige plejebehov kan modtages af sundhedsvæsenet i EU-medlemsstaterne?
Lastly, does it plan to recommend that Member States adopt a joint measure aimed at organising an extraordinary humanitarian operation with the objective of accommodating thousands of Chechen children in need of special care in the health structures of the EU Member States?
Kommissionen er bekendt med og også bekymret over den humanitære situation i det nordlige Kaukasus.
The Commission is aware of, and concerned by, the humanitarian situation in the north Caucasus.
Virkningerne af den nuværende konflikt i Tjetjenien er for almindelige borgere — og navnlig for børn — meget foruroligende.
The impact of the ongoing conflict in Chechnya on ordinary citizens — and in particular children — is deeply disturbing.
Kommissionen er — via EU's Kontor for Humanitær Bistand (ECHO) — den største donor af humanitær bistand i det nordlige Kaukasus med mere end 110 mio. EUR siden 1999.
The Commission — via the European Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) — is the largest donor of humanitarian aid in the north Caucasus, with EUR 110 million committed since 1999.
Betydelige midler er allerede ydet for at forbedre den dårlige sundhedsmæssige infrastruktur i Tjetjenien og for at levere rent drikkevand og forbedre de sanitære forhold for den lokale befolkning.
Significant funding has already been allocated for efforts to improve the poor health infrastructure in Chechnya as well as to provide safe drinking water and improve sanitation conditions for local inhabitants.
Særlige sundhedsprogrammer for børn er iværksat fire steder i Grozny.
Specific health programmes for children are going on in four locations in Grozny.
Disse vil blive fortsat og snart blive udvidet til seks steder.
This will continue and will soon be expanded to six locations.
Forhåbentlig vil disse anstrengelser med tiden bidrage til at forbedre civilbefolkningens meget dårlige sundhedstilstand i Tjetjenien, men så længe denne fortsat lever under disse svære betingelser, vil virkningen af programmerne for den generelle sundhedstilstand være begrænset.
It is certainly hoped that these efforts will over time contribute to improve the very poor state of health of the civilian population in Chechnya, but as long as the population continues to live in such poor conditions, the impact of these programmes on the general health situation will be limited.
Kommissionen skal præcisere, at kommissæren med ansvar for udvikling og humanitær bistand aflagde besøg i det nordlige Kaukasus i 2000.
The Commission notes that the Member of the Commission responsible for Development and Humanitarian Aid visited the north Caucasus in 2000.
På grund af de alvorlige sikkerhedsproblemer i dette område har det desværre ikke hidtil været muligt for mere højtstående embedsmænd at aflægge besøg.
It regrets that — due to difficult security conditions in this area — more high-level visits have not been possible so far.
Kommissionen vil benytte lejligheden til at understrege, at ECHO forsøger at sende regelmæssige missioner til Tjetjenien for detaljeret og på ekspertniveau at vurdere befolkningens behov, så der kan tages stilling til, hvorledes den bedst kan hjælpe til med at forbedre den humanitære situation, navnlig for børnenes vedkommende.
It takes this opportunity to underline the fact that ECHO tries to undertake regular missions to Chechnya to assess in detail and at expert level the needs of the population there, in order to consider how best it can help to improve the humanitarian situation, in particular with regard to children.
Sikkerhedsforholdene i området vil dog i høj grad være afgørende for omfanget af programmerne i Tjetjenien og de regelmæssige besøg.
The extent of the programmes undertaken in Chechnya and the regularity of visits there, are however, highly dependent on security conditions in the region.
2004/C 78 E/313
2004/C 78 E/313
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL P-3666/03
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3666/03
Om: Sundhedsydelser og fri bevægelighed for patienter
Subject: Health services and free movement of patients
I dommen i sagen Müller-Fauré/Van Riet (C-385/99) foretager Domstolen en klar sondring mellem ambulant behandling og hospitalsbehandling og fastslår, at krav om forhåndstilladelse kun er i strid med princippet om fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser, når der er tale om en behandling, som ikke er en hospitalsydelse, og som ydes i en anden medlemsstat af en person eller institution, hvormed der ikke er indgået nogen overenskomst.
In the Müller-Fauré/Van Riet judgment (C-385/99), the Court of Justice drew a clear distinction between out-patient treatment and hospital treatment, stipulating that requests for prior authorisation are contrary to the principle of the freedom to provide services only in the case of out-patient treatment provided in another Member State by a non-contracted provider.
I sin betænkning om sundhedspleje (december 2002 — A5-0452/2002 ) påpegede Parlamentet, at målsætningerne om sundhedsplejens holdbarhed, tilgængelighed og kvalitet bl.a. forudsætter, at der skabes et indre marked for sundhedspleje og sundhedsprodukter, som sikrer en sundhedspleje, der er tilgængelig for alle og af høj kvalitet, og at der samtidig tages hensyn til bæredygtigheden og omfanget af systemerne i medlemsstaterne og sikres borgerne fri bevægelighed og en adgang til tjenesteydelser i alle EU-landene, som er i overensstemmelse med nærhedsprincippet.
In its report on the future of health care (December 2002 — A5-0452/2002 ), for which I was rapporteur, the European Parliament pointed out that the achievement of the objectives of sustainability, accessibility and quality of health services requires inter alia the creation of an internal market in health services and products which must guarantee high quality health care accessible to, and affordable for, all, taking into account the viability and capacity of the Member States' systems and guaranteeing both free movement of citizens and access to services in all countries of the Union, with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity.
Hvordan kan det være, at Domstolen ikke har udtrykt samme holdning til hospitalsbehandling?
Why did the Court's ruling not follow these principles, with regard to hospital treatment?
Navnlig ønskes følgende spørgsmål besvaret: —
Will the Commission answer the following questions, in particular: —
Hvordan kan det forenes med unionsborgerens status, at dennes ret til sundhedsbeskyttelse ifølge ovennævnte dom kun er garanteret fuldt ud i forbindelse med ambulant behandling og ikke med hospitalsbehandling, hvilket kun bygger på en rent økonomisk logik? —
how can it reconcile this ruling with the rights of European citizens, whose right to health care is now guaranteed only in the case of out-patient treatment, and not hospital treatment, a measure based purely on economic grounds? —
Hvordan forenes denne dobbeltordning , som indebærer valgfrihed i forbindelse med behandling, som ikke er hospitalsbehandling, og krav om forhåndstilladelse i forbindelse med hospitalsbehandling, med sikkerheden for et højt sundhedsbeskyttelsesniveau, der er fastsat i de gældende traktater? —
how can it reconcile this dual regime, where there is freedom of choice for out-patient treatment, but a requirement for prior authorisation for hospital treatment, with the guarantee of a high level of health protection provided for in the Treaties? —
Hvordan kan unionsborgernes udøvelse af deres frie valg være en trussel mod den økonomiske balance i en national ordning, som ikke for ydelser modtaget i en anden medlemsstat godtgør beløb, der er højere end dem, der er fastsat i den nationale ordning? —
how can the exercise of free choice by European citizens jeopardise the financial balance of a national system, when it does not pay a higher rate of reimbursement for services provided in another Member State than it does under its own system? —
Som led i gennemførelsen af forordning nr. 1408/71 EFT L 149 af 5.7.1971, s. 2 . om anvendelse af de sociale sikringsordninger på arbejdstagere og deres familiemedlemmer, der flytter inden for Fællesskabet, har medlemsstaterne allerede indført godtgørelsesordninger for behandlinger, der modtages i en anden medlemsstat.
given that, under the terms of Regulation No 1408/71 OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p.
Hvordan forklares under henvisning hertil de tekniske problemer, som godtgørelser medlemsstaterne imellem hævdes at afstedkomme i forbindelse med de øvrige unionsborgeres frie valg af stedet for hospitalsbehandling? —
2 . on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, the Member States have already introduced mechanisms for subsequent reimbursement of treatment provided in another Member State, how can it justify the technical problems placed in the way of reimbursement between Member States in cases where European citizens have exercised their freedom to choose the location of hospital treatment? —
Er kravet om forhåndsgodkendelse af hospitalsbehandling ikke en hindring for patienternes frie valg på grundlag af kvalitet og tilgængelighed for alle, hvorved de borgere, der ikke har tilstrækkelige finansielle midler til at kunne se bort fra forhåndsgodkendelsen og dermed opnå en hurtig og hensigtsmæssig behandling, udsættes for forskelsbehandling? —
the requirement to request prior authorisation for hospital treatment not a means of denying freedom of choice to patients on the basis of quality and accessibility to all, thereby discriminating against citizens who cannot afford to side-step the required authorisation and obtain the treatment they need without delay? —
Kommissionen har allerede besvaret den mundtlige forespørgsel H-0763/03 , det ærede medlem stillede om samme emne under spørgetiden i mødeperioden i december 2003 Skriftligt svar af 17. december 2003. .
The Commission has already replied to the Honourable Member's Oral Question H-763/03 on the same subject during question time at the December 2003 session Written answer of 17.12.2003. .
I sit svar på denne skriftlige forespørgsel kan Kommissionen gå mere i detaljer.
In answering this Written Question, the Commission will be able to provide more details.
2003-I, s. 4509. stilling til spørgsmålet om forhåndstilladelse som betingelse for at få godtgjort lægeudgifter afholdt i en anden medlemsstat.
I-04509. , the Court of Justice ruled on the question of authorising the reimbursement of health care provided in another Member State.
Dommen indgår i en række af domme, som Domstolen har afsagt om spørgsmålet siden 1998 Dom af 28. april 1998 i sag C-155/96, Kohll, Sml.
This judgment follows a series of others which have been delivered by the Court on this issue since 1998 Kohll judgment, Case C-155/96 of 28.04.98, ECR 1998 p.
1998-I, s. 1931, dom af 28. april 1998 i sag C-120/95, Decker, Sml.
I-1931, Decker judgment, Case C-120/95 of 28.04.98, ECR 1998 p.
1998-I, s. 1831, dom af 12. juli 2001 i sag C-157/99, Smits og Peerbooms, Sml.
I-1831, Smits and Peerbooms judgment, Case C-157/99 of 12.07.01, ECR 2001 p.
2001-I, s. 5473, og dom af 12. juli 2001 i sag C-368/98, Vanbraekel, Sml.
I-05473, Vanbraekel judgment, Case C-368/98 of 12.07.01, ECR 2001 p.
Domstolen behandlede i øvrigt på ny spørgsmålet i Inizan-sagen Dom af 23. oktober 2003 i sag C-56/01, Patricia Inizan/Caisse Primaire d'Assurance Maladie des Hauts de Seine affaire (endnu ikke offentliggjort). .
It should also be pointed out that the Court has delivered another ruling on this matter in the Inizan case Patricia Inizan/Caisse Primaire d'Assurance Maladie des Hauts de Seine judgment, Case C-56/01 of 23.10.03 (not yet published). .
De spørgsmål, der stilles Kommissionen, bør besvares i lyset af denne samlede retspraksis.
It is on the basis of this body of case-law that the questions put to the Commission should be examined.
Domstolen har i nævnte domme anerkendt patienters ret til at få godtgjort lægeudgifter afholdt i en anden medlemsstat.
In these judgments, the Court recognised the right of patients to receive reimbursement of the costs incurred for medical care in another Member State.
Domstolen har dog fastsat visse betingelser for at udøve denne ret, bl.a. med henblik på at garantere den sociale sikringsordnings økonomiske ligevægt og sikre et højt sundhedsbeskyttelsesniveau.
However, the Court attached to the exercise of this right conditions aimed at protecting the financial balance of the social security system and ensuring a high level of health protection.
Disse overvejelser ligger til grund for Domstolens sondring mellem hospitalsbehandling og anden behandling end hospitalsbehandling.
These considerations lie behind the distinction drawn by the Court between non-hospital and hospital treatment.
Det bør dog betones, at Domstolen selv ved hospitalsbehandling, hvor den fandt det begrundet at stille krav om en forhåndstilladelse, dog mente, at der i betragtning af patientens helbredstilstand ikke var nogen gyldig grund til et sådant krav, hvis patienten oplever urimeligt lange ventelister.
It should, however, be emphasised that even in the case of hospital treatment where the Court felt that reimbursement was justified, it nonetheless considered that there was no proper justification for this requirement in cases where the patient faced excessive waiting times given the state of his/her health.
Domstolen har således fastslået, at patienters sundhedsbeskyttelse vejere tungere end rent økonomiske hensyn, som desuden efter Domstolens faste praksis ikke kan legitimere en hindring for det grundlæggende princip om fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser.
The Court therefore gave priority to protecting the health of the patient over purely economic considerations which, moreover, according to settled case-law, cannot justify a barrier to the fundamental principle of freedom to provide services.
For så vidt angår anden behandling end hospitalsbehandling, har Domstolen anerkendt patienters ret til frit valg ved at fastslå, at kravet om en forhåndstilladelse som betingelse for godtgørelse ikke var begrundet og skulle fjernes.
With regard to non-hospital care, the Court recognised that patients had freedom of choice in stating that the requirement for prior authorisation for reimbursement was not justified and should be removed.
Domstolen har bekræftet, at for at sikre, at den sociale sikringsordnings økonomiske ligevægt ikke bringes i fare i den ansvarlige medlemsstat, skal godtgørelsen af udgifter til sådanne behandlinger holde sig inden for grænserne af den dækning, som patienter har efter den ansvarlige medlemsstats sygesikring.
The Court confirmed that, in order not to jeopardise the financial balance of the social security system in the Member State of affiliation, reimbursement of these costs should be within the limits of the cover received by patients under the sickness insurance scheme of their Member State of affiliation.
Den ansvarlige medlemsstat er således kun forpligtet til at godtgøre udgifter til behandling i en anden medlemsstat, hvis denne behandling dækkes af den sociale sikringsordning, når den udføres på dens eget område.
Thus, the Member State of affiliation is only obliged to reimburse the cost of health care provided in another Member State insofar as this same health care is reimbursed by its social security system when the treatment is provided on its own territory, these costs are reimbursed at the rates of the Member State of affiliation, and the conditions imposed by Member States on according non-hospital care on their territory, such as the requirement to consult a general practitioner prior to consulting a specialist doctor, remain applicable for health care provided in another Member State.
Udgifterne godtgøres efter de gældende takster i den ansvarlige medlemsstat, og de betingelser, medlemsstaterne stiller for på deres eget område at godtgøre anden behandling end hospitalsbehandling, f.eks. kravet om at konsultere en alment praktiserende læge forud for konsultation hos speciallæge, gælder ligeledes for behandling i andre medlemsstater.
With regard to hospital care, the Court acknowledged that the requirement for authorisation was justified by the Member States' planning needs.
Målet er således at sikre, at de kan garantere, at der på deres område er en tilstrækkelig og vedvarende adgang til et afbalanceret udbud af gode hospitalsydelser, og at sikre styring af omkostninger og i videst muligt omfang at undgå ethvert spild af økonomiske, tekniske og menneskelige ressourcer.
The aim is to allow them to ensure that there is sufficient and permanent accessibility to a balanced range of high-quality hospital treatment on their territory, as well as to help them control costs and prevent, as far as possible, any wastage of technical and human resources.
Det er derfor i patienters egen interesse at opretholde kravet om en forhåndstilladelse i dette tilfælde, idet de bør kunne få den fornødne behandling i deres egen medlemsstat.
Retaining the requirement for authorisation in this case is, therefore, in the interests of patients who should be able to receive appropriate treatment in their own Member State.
Domstolen har videre fastslået, at selv om dette ikke skulle være tilfældet, f.eks. hvis der er ventelister på landets område for at kunne få den behandling, som patientens helbredstilstand kræver, er det ikke begrundet at afslå en forhåndstilladelse til behandling i en anden medlemsstat.
The Court also stated that if this was not the case, perhaps because there are waiting lists on the national territory to receive the care required by the patient's state of health, a refusal to authorise treatment in another Member State would not be justified.
Domstolen har således understreget, at tilladelsen til at undergå behandling i en anden medlemsstat kun kan afslås, når en tilsvarende behandling eller en behandling, som frembyder samme grad af virkning for patienten, kan ydes rettidigt på landets eget område.
The Court did, in fact, emphasise that authorisation to receive treatment in another Member State may be refused only if treatment which is the same or equally effective for the patient can be obtained without undue delay on the national territory.
Den har fastslået, at ved vurderingen af, om en sådan behandling kunne ydes rettidigt, er de nationale myndigheder forpligtet til at tage hensyn til alle de omstændigheder, der kendetegner hver enkelt konkret sag, under behørig hensyntagen ikke alene til patientens lægelige situation på det tidspunkt, hvor der ansøges om tilladelse, herunder i givet fald omfanget af patientens smerter eller arten af hans handicap, der for eksempel vil kunne gøre det umuligt eller overordentligt vanskeligt at udøve et erhverv, men også under hensyn til hans sygdomshistorie.
It ruled that in order to determine whether such treatment could be obtained without undue delay, the national authorities are required to have regard to all the circumstances of each specific case and to take due account not only of the patient's medical condition at the time when authorisation is sought and, where appropriate, of the degree of pain or the nature of the patient's disability which might, for example, make it impossible or extremely difficult for him to carry out a professional activity, but also of his medical history.
Borgerne kan således fremover få godtgjort udgifter til den hospitalsbehandling, deres helbredstilstand kræver, også selv om behandlingen ydes i en anden medlemsstat.
Thus, citizens can now obtain financial reimbursement of the hospital care costs required by their state of health, even in cases where this care is provided in another Member State.
Muligheden for at undergå behandling i udlandet er således ikke længere forbeholdt patienter med tilstrækkelige økonomiske midler til at betale lægeudgifterne uden hjælp fra den sociale sikringsordning.
The possibility of seeking health care abroad is no longer therefore solely restricted to those patients with sufficient financial resources to bear the cost of these medical expenses without assistance from the social security system.
Forordning nr. 1408/71 Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 af 14. juni 1971 om anvendelse af de sociale sikringsordninger på arbejdstagere og deres familiemedlemmer, der flytter inden for Fællesskabet, EFT L 149 af 5.7.1971 , ajourført ved forordning nr. 118/97, EFT L 28 af 30.1.1997 . , som støtter og letter den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 49, skal garantere de forsikrede ret til naturalydelser i opholdsmedlemsstaten for den ansvarlige institutions regning og efter bestemmelserne i lovgivningen i den medlemsstat, hvor ydelserne leveres, som om den forsikrede var tilsluttet landets gældende ordning.
Regulation 1408/71 Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, OJ L 149, 5.7.1971 , version updated by Regulation 118//97, OJ L 28, 30.1.1997 . , which supports and facilitates the freedom to provide services under Article 49 of the EC treaty, aims to grant assured persons the right to benefits in kind provided in the Member State of stay on behalf of the competent institution in accordance with the legislation of the Member State in which the benefits are provided, as though the insured person were insured with it.
I denne henseende begrænser fællesskabsretten ikke medlemsstaternes kompetence til selv at udforme deres sociale sikringsordninger, og for så vidt som der ikke er foretaget en harmonisering på EU-plan, tilkommer det hver medlemsstat i lovgivningen dels at fastsætte vilkårene for retten eller forpligtelsen til at blive tilsluttet en social sikringsordning, dels de betingelser, som en person skal opfylde for at være berettiget til ydelser.
In this respect, Community law does not detract from the powers of the Member States to organise their social security systems and, in the absence of harmonisation at Community level, it is for the legislation of each Member State to determine, first, the conditions concerning the right or duty to be insured with a social security scheme and, second, the conditions for entitlement to benefits.
Ved artikel 22 i forordning nr. 1408/71 indføres der en ordning for godtgørelse af udgifter til behandling, som patienter har fået tilladelse til at undergå i en anden medlemsstat, herunder hospitalsbehandling.
Article 22 of Regulation 1408/71 has in fact made provision for a mechanism for the reimbursement of expenses for treatment which patients have been authorised to undergo in another Member State, particularly for hospital care.
Forordningens artikel 36 fastsætter de praktiske betingelser for denne godtgørelse mellem socialsikringsinstitutionerne.
Article 36 of the Regulation organises the practical conditions for this reimbursement between social security institutions.