natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
IKA sendte desuden blanket E 107 tilbage til den tyske sygekasse med meddelelse om, at institutionen ikke var i stand til at udstede blanket E 112 i det foreliggende tilfælde.
It sent the Form E 107 back to the German sickness fund, stating that it was unable to issue a Form E 112 in the case.
Vasileios Ioannidis klagede til den kompetente, administrative klageinstans for IKA over afslaget på at meddele tilladelse. I klagen fremhævede han, at formålet med hans ophold i Tyskland var at besøge hans søn, der boede dér sammen med sin mor.
Mr Ioannidis complained against the refusal of authorisation to the competent administrative committee of the IKA He pointed out inter alia that the purpose of his stay in Germany was to visit his son, who lives with his mother there.
Da klageinstansen fandt, at Vasileios Ioannidis' lidelse opstod pludseligt under det pågældende ophold, og at hans indlæggelse var nødvendig for at undgå en reel livsfare, traf den den 14. juli 1997 afgørelse om, at behandlingen skulle godkendes efterfølgende i medfør af IKA-reglementets artikel 3a, stk. 4, litra g), og at IKA derfor skulle refundere udgifterne dertil.
Since it considered that Mr Ioannidis's illness had indeed appeared suddenly during that stay and that his admission to hospital had been necessary to avert a real risk to his life, the committee decided on 14 July 1997 that the disputed treatment should be authorised ex post facto, pursuant to Article 3a(4)(g) of the IKA Regulations, and that the IKA should therefore reimburse the cost.
IKA anlagde sag ved Diikitiko Protodikio Thessalonikis med påstand om annullation af denne afgørelse, idet institutionen gjorde gældende, at de betingelser, der er fastsat i den omhandlede bestemmelse, ikke er opfyldt i det foreliggende tilfælde.
The IKA brought an action in the Diikitiko Protodikio Thessalonikis for annulment of that decision, arguing that the conditions laid down by that provision were not satisfied in this case.
Det er under disse omstændigheder, at retten besluttede at udsætte sagen og forelægge Domstolen en række præjudicielle spørgsmål.
Question 1
Med det første spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om artikel 31 og 36 i forordning nr. 1408/71 og artikel 31 og 93 i forordning nr. 574/72 er til hinder for nationale regler, hvorefter refusion fra den kompetente institution på en pensionists bopælssted af udgifter til en hospitalsbehandling, som pensionisten har fået under et ophold i en anden medlemsstat, er betinget af, at den pågældende efterfølgende får en tilladelse, der kun meddeles, såfremt den forudgående tilladelse, der normalt kræves efter disse nationale regler, har været umulig at opnå, fordi den pågældende lidelse pludselig opstod under det nævnte ophold, og behandlingen af denne var absolut nødvendig.
By its first question, the national court is asking, essentially, whether Articles 31 and 36 of Regulation No 1408/71 and Articles 31 and 93 of Regulation No 574/72 preclude national legislation under which reimbursement by the institution of a pensioner's place of residence of hospital treatment received by him during a stay in another Member State is subject to ex post facto authorisation which is granted only in so far as the prior authorisation normally required by that national legislation was impossible to obtain because the illness in question manifested itself suddenly during that stay, making the provision of treatment immediately necessary.
Der må sondres mellem den ordning, der er indført ved artikel 31 i forordning nr. 1408/71, og den, der er omhandlet i samme forordnings artikel 22, stk. 1, litra a).
The system established by Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71 must be distinguished from that laid down by Article 22(1)(a) of that regulation.
Artikel 31 i forordning nr. 1408/71 kan navnlig ikke fortolkes således, at de omhandlede naturalydelser kun er forbeholdt pensions- eller rentemodtagere, hvis tilstand kræver øjeblikkelig ydelse af lægehjælp under deres ophold i en anden medlemsstat, dvs. at bestemmelsen ikke er begrænset til kun at omfatte den behandling, der er konstateret et lægeligt behov for, og som således ikke kan afvente den sikredes hjemkomst til bopælsstaten.
In particular, Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71 cannot be interpreted as meaning that the enjoyment of the benefits in kind it guarantees is reserved solely to pensioners whose condition requires immediate benefits during a stay in another Member State, that is to say, it cannot be limited solely to treatment which is found to be medically necessary immediately and thus could not be deferred until the insured person returns to his State of residence.
Denne bestemmelse kan heller ikke fortolkes således, at den kun finder anvendelse i tilfælde, hvor behandlingen har været nødvendig som følge af, at lidelsen pludseligt er opstået.
Nor can that provision be interpreted as meaning that those benefits are limited solely to cases where the treatment provided has become necessary because of a sudden illness.
Navnlig kan den omstændighed, at den behandling, der er fornøden som følge af udviklingen i den socialt sikredes
In particular, the circumstance that the treatment necessitated by developments in the insured person's state of health during his temporary stay in another Member State may be linked to a pre-existent pathology of which he is aware, such as a
helbredstilstand under dennes midlertidige ophold i en anden medlemsstat, eventuelt har sammenhæng med en eksisterende lidelse, som den forsikrede har kendskab til, såsom en kronisk sygdom, ikke bevirke, at den pågældende er afskåret fra at påberåbe sig artikel 31 i forordning nr. 1408/71.
chronic illness, cannot suffice to prevent him from enjoying the benefit of the provisions of Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71.
Det følger af samtlige ovenstående bemærkninger, at en medlemsstat hverken kan underkaste den ret til naturalydelser, som artikel 31 i forordning nr. 1408/71 tilsikrer pensionister, der opholder sig i en anden medlemsstat end den, hvori de er bosat, nogen form for godkendelsesordning eller nogen betingelse om, at den lidelse, der har nødvendiggjort den pågældende behandling, pludselig opstod under det nævnte ophold, og behandlingen af denne var absolut nødvendig.
It follows from all the foregoing that it is not permissible for a Member State to make provision of the benefits in kind guaranteed by Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71 to pensioners staying in a Member State other than the State in which they reside subject either to any authorisation procedure whatever or to the requirement that the illness which necessitated the treatment in question manifested itself suddenly during that stay, making that treatment immediately necessary.
Afholdelse af udgifterne til den behandling, der er omfattet af artikel 31 i forordning nr. 1408/71
Funding of the treatment covered by Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71
Når det viser sig, at det er med urette, at opholdsstedets institution har afvist at anvende denne bestemmelse, og at bopælsstedets institution efter at have fået kendskab hertil har undladt at opfylde sin forpligtelse til at bidrage til en korrekt anvendelse af bestemmelsen, påhviler det denne sidstnævnte institution — med forbehold af et eventuelt erstatningsansvar for opholdsstedets institution — at refundere de udgifter, den sikrede har måttet afholde til behandlingen direkte til ham, således at denne sidstnævnte sikres et ydelsesniveau, der svarer til det, han ville have fået, hvis bestemmelserne i nævnte artikel var blevet overholdt.
Where it appears that the institution of the place of stay has wrongly refused to give effect to that provision and the institution of the place of residence, on being advised of that refusal, has declined to contribute, as it is obliged to, to facilitating the correct application of that provision, it is for the latter institution, without prejudice to the possible liability of the institution of the place of stay, to reimburse directly to the insured person the cost of the treatment he has had to bear, so as to guarantee him a level of funding equivalent to that which he would have enjoyed had the provisions of that article been complied with.
For en sådan refusion, der i den foreliggende situation træder i stedet for de naturalydelser, som pensionister i henhold til artikel 31 i forordning nr. 1408/71 har krav på, gælder desuden, at en medlemsstat ikke kan underkaste denne refusion nogen form for godkendelsesordning eller nogen betingelse om, at den lidelse, der har nødvendiggjort den pågældende behandling, pludselig opstod under opholdet i den anden medlemsstat, og behandlingen af denne var absolut nødvendig.
Moreover, as such reimbursement takes the place in such a case of the benefits in kind which Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71 guarantees to pensioners, a Member State cannot make the reimbursement conditional on any authorisation procedure, or on the requirement that the illness which necessitated the treatment in question manifested itself suddenly during the stay in another Member State, making the provision of that treatment immediately necessary.
Denne bestemmelse er således til hinder for, at en medlemsstat opstiller en sådan betingelse.
That provision therefore precludes a Member State from subjecting that enjoyment to such a condition.
Artikel 31 iforordrung nr. 1408/71, som ændret og ajourført ved forordning nr. 2001/83, som ændret ved forordning nr. 3096/95, er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat underkaster opnåelsen af de naturalydelser, som bestemmelsen giver ret til, nogen form for godkendelsesordning.
Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 3096/95, precludes a Member State from subjecting the enjoyment of the benefits in kind guaranteed by that provision to any authorisation procedure.
Ydelsen og refusionen af de naturalydelser, der er omhandlet i artikel 31 i forordning nr. 1408/71, som ændret og ajourført ved forordning nr. 2001/83, som ændret ved forordning nr. 3096/95, skal normalt finde sted i overensstemmelse med bestemmelserne i denne artikel, sammenholdt med samme forordnings artikel 36 samt artikel 31 og 93
The provision and funding of the benefits in kind referred to in Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 3096/95, must normally take place in accordance with the provisions of that article in conjunction with Article 36 of that regulation and Articles 31 and 93 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure f or
i Rädeis forordning (EØF) nr. 574/72 af 21. marts 1972 om regler til gennemførelse af forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71, som ændret og ajourført ved forordning nr. 2001/83, som ændret ved forordning nr. 3096/95.
implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 3096/95.
4) Når det viser sig, at opholdsstedets institution med urette har afvist at udrede de naturalydelser, der er omhandlet i artikel 31 i forordning nr. 1408/71, som ændret og ajourført ved forordning nr. 2001/83, som ændret ved forordning nr. 3096/95, og at bopælsstedets institution efter at have fået kendskab hertil har undladt at opfylde sin forpligtelse til at bidrage til en korrekt anvendelse af bestemmelsen, påhviler det denne sidstnævnte institution — med forbehold af et eventuelt erstatningsansvar for opholdsstedets institution — at refundere de udgifter, den sikrede har måttet afholde til behandlingen direkte til ham, således at denne sidstnævnte sikres et ydelsesniveau, der svarer til det, han ville have fået, hvis bestemmelserne i nævnte artikel var blevet overholdt.
Where it appears that the institution of the place of stay has wrongly refused to provide the benefits in kind referred to in Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 3096/95, and the institution of the place of residence, on being advised of that refusal, has declined to contribute, as it is obliged to, to facilitating the correct application of that provision, it is for the latter institution, without prejudice to the possible liability of the institution of the place of stay, to reimburse directly to the insured person the cost of the treatment he has had to bear, so as to guarantee him a level of funding equivalent to that which he would have enjoyed had the provisions ofthat article been complied with.
5) I sidstnævnte situation er artikel 31 og 36 i forordning nr. 1408/71, som ændret og ajourført ved forordning nr. 2001/83, som ændret vedforordning nr. 3096/95, samt artikel 31 og 93 i forordning nr. 574/72, som ændret og ajourført ved fowrdning nr. 2001/83, som ændret ved forordning nr. 3096/95, til hinder for nationale regler, hvorefter en sådan refusion er betinget af, at den pågældende efterfølgende får en tilladelse, der kun meddeles, såfremt det godtgøres, at den lidelse, der har nødvendiggjort den pågældende behandling, pludselig opstod under opholdet, og behandlingen af denne var absolut nødvendig.*
In the latter case, Articles 31 and 36 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 3096/95, and Articles 31 and 93 of Regulation No 574/72, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 3096/95, preclude national legislation from subjecting such reimbursement to the obtaining of ex post facto authorisation which L· granted only in so far as it is shown that the illness which necessitated the treatment in question manifested itself suddenly during the stay, making that treatment immediately necessary.'
Generaladvokat D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 15. oktober 2002.
Advocate General D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 15 October 2002.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
He proposed that the Court should answer that:
»Traktatbrud—direktiv 92/49/EØF—fri tariffastsættelse og ophævelse af løbende forudgående kontrol med tariffer og aftaler — indsamling af oplysninger* (Domstolens plenum)
'Article 31 of 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, and Article 31 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, preclude national legislation which requires, as an additional requirement, before the social security institution refunds the costs of treatment which has already taken place in hospital abroad, a special authorisation which is granted on condition that the illness of the insured, who is a pensioner, has manifested itself suddenly during a stay abroad and that medical care has been required immediately.'
Søgsmålet
25 February 2003
Klagepunktet vedrørende tilsidesættelsen af artikel 6, 29 og 39 i direktiv 92/49
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/49/EEC — Freedom to set premiums and abolition of prior or systematic controls over premiums and contracts — Gathering of information) (Full Court)
Det må fastslås, at de omtvistede tarifbestemmelser er en punktforanstaltning, der berører en særlig forsikringssektor uden for området for livsforsikringer, nemlig lovpligtig motorkøretøjsforsikring, og at de derfor ikke selvstændigt kan opfylde det kriterium, en priskontrolordning skal opfylde om, at foranstaltningen skal finde almindelig anvendelse for at kunne begrunde, at princippet om fri tariffastsættelse fraviges.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 12 February 2001, Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by introducing and maintaining in force rate-freezing rules applicable to all contracts of insurance in respect of third-party liability arising from the use of motor vehicles in relation to risks situated within Italian territory, without distinguishing between insurance companies having their head office in Italy and those carrying on business in Italy through branch offices or under the freedom to provide services, in breach of:
Dette gælder så meget desto mere, som — som Kommissionen har anført uden at blive modsagt af Den Italienske Republik — forsikringspræmierne i den berørte sektor kun repræsenterer 0,22% af det udvalg af goder og tjenesteydelser, der anvendes til at beregne inflationsudviklingen i Italien.
(a) the principle of the freedom to set premiums and the abolition of prior or systematic controls over premiums and contracts, as dealt with in Articles 6, 29 and 39 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third nonlife insurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1);
Hvad angår de øvrige foranstaltninger, som den italienske regering har henvist til som begrundelse for, at der er tale om en almindelig priskontrolordning, skal det blot konstateres, at selv om de rent faktisk vedrører andre økonomiske sektorer end ansvarsforsikring for motorkøretøjer, er der ikke desto mindre tale om punktforanstaltninger, der ikke anvendes ensartet, som delvis ikke er bindende, og som hverken er direkte forbundne indbyrdes eller med de tarifbestemmelser, der er indført ved lovdekretet.
(b) the provisions of Article 44 of that directive, which concern arrangements for gathering information on the amount of the premiums, claims and commission, the frequency and average cost of claims, and the exchange of information between the regulatory authorities of the home Member State and those of the host Member State, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Det er i den forbindelse ikke engang nødvendigt at belyse spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt de nævnte bestemmelser indgår i en ordning med »tarifforhøjelser« i de nævnte bestemmelsers forstand.
The rules on premium rates at issue involve selective intervention in a specific field of nonlife insurance, that is to say, compulsory motor vehicle insurance, and they cannot therefore of themselves satisfy the criterion that a control system should be of a general nature if a derogation from the freedom of undertakings to fix rates is to be justified, a fortiori because, as the Commission has observed without being contradicted by the Italian Republic, insurance premiums in the sector concerned represent only 0.22% of the basket of goods and services used in calculating movements in Italian inflation.
Hvad dernæst angår de forskellige almene hensyn, som Den Italienske Republik har påberåbt sig med henblik på at påvise, at de omtvistede tarifbestemmelser er omfattet af artikel 28 i direktiv 92/49, bemærkes, at det almene hensyn, der forfølges med denne bestemmelse, under alle omstændigheder ikke kan påberåbes med henblik på at berettige indførelse eller opretholdelse af nationale bestemmelser, der er i strid med princippet om fri tariffastsættelse, idet undtagelserne fra dette princip har været genstand for samordnede regler i artikel 6, 29 og 39 i samme direktiv.
As regards the other measures relied on by the Italian Government to prove the existence of a general price-control system, it is sufficient to note that while they concern economic sectors other than that of insurance covering third-party liability arising from the use of motor vehicles, they are none the less very specific, heterogenous measures, not wholly binding and without any direct connection either between themselves or between them and the rules relating to premium rates laid down by the Decree-Law.
Klagepunktet om tilsidesættelse af artikel 44 i direktiv 92/49
The allegation of infringement of Article 44 of Directive 92/49
Det fremgår af sagens akter, at den indsamling af individualiserede oplysninger, der er omhandlet i lovdekretets artikel 2, stk. 5c, forfølger et formål vedrørende bekæmpelse af svig, der er forskellig fra det, der forfølges med artikel 44 i direktiv 92/49.
It is apparent from the documents before the Court that the gathering of individualised information referred to in Article 2(5)c of the Decree-Law pursues an anti-fraud objective different from that pursued by Article 44 of Directive 92/49.
Da der desuden er tale om en forpligtelse for de berørte forsikringsselskaber til at bidrage til finansieringen af den database, der er indført ved lovdekretet, og da der er fastsat straffebestemmelser i tilfælde af manglende overholdelse af oplysningspligten, nævner Kommissionen dem kun for at tilføje, at de forstærker den ordning, der er indført ved lovdekretet, og for at konkludere, at de af samme grund bør erklæres ugyldige.
Furthermore, as regards, first, the obligation imposed on insurance undertakings to contribute to the funding of the data-bank set up by the Decree-Law and, second, the penalties provided for in case of non-compliance with the obligation to communicate information, the Commission mentions them only to add that they reinforce the machinery set up by the Decree-Law and to conclude that they must for the same reason be declared invalid.
Da Kommissionen kun har anfægtet foreneligheden af denne ordning med fællesskabsretten i forhold til artikel 44 i direktiv 92/49, må det andet klagepunkt forkastes.
Since the Commission has challenged the compatibility of that machinery with Community law only in relation to Article 44 of Directive 92/49, the second complaint must be rejected.
»1) Den Italienske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 6, 29 og 39 i Rådets direktiv 92/49/EØF af 18. juni 1992 om samordning af love og administrative bestemmelser vedrørende direkte forsikringsvirksomhed bortset fra livsforsikring og om ændring af direktiv 73/239/EØF og 88/357/EF (tredje »skadesforsikringsdirektiv*), for så vidt som den i strid med princippet om fri tariffastsættelse har indført og opretholdt en ordning med fastfrysning af de priser, der gælder for alle aftaler om ansvarsforsikring f or motorkøretøjer, der dækker risici på italiensk område, og som gælder uden forskel for forsikringsselskaber, der er hjemmehørende i Italien, og selskaber, som udøver deres virksomhed dér gennem datterselskaber eller i henhold til reglerne om fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser.
Declares that, by introducing and maintaining in force rate-freezing rules applicable to all contracts of insurance in respect of third-party liability arising from the use of motor vehicles in relation to risks situated within Italian territory, without distinguishing between insurance companies having their head office in Italy and those conducting their business in Italy through branch offices or under the freedom to provide services, in breach of the principle of freedom to set premiums referred to in Articles 6, 29 and 39 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third nonlife insurance Directive), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Hver part bærer sine egne omkostninger.*
Orders each party to bear its own costs.*
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 4. juli 2002.
Advocate General S. Alber delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 4 July 2002.
Sag C-373/00 Adolf Tru ley GmbH / Bestattung Wien GmbH Regler for virksomhederne
Case C-373/00 Adolf Truley GmbH ν Bestattung Wien GmbH Company law
Præjudiciel »Direktiv 93/36/EØF — offentlige indkøbskontrakter offentligretligt organ — bedemandsvirksomhed* (Femte Afdeling)
Preliminary ruling (Directive 931361EEC — Public supply contracts — Concept of contracting authority — Publiclaw body — Funeral undertaking) (Fifth Chamber)