natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
22 Patients not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom may receive medical treatment under the NHS, though in principle not free of charge. The NHS (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989 provide for the making and recovery of charges for NHS treatment provided to overseas visitors. The PCTs are required to provide such treatment unless the patient satisfies any of the exemption criteria in those regulations. Those regulations provide exceptions inter alia for treatment within hospital accident and emergency departments, and to reflect the rights of persons insured in other Member States. 
22 Pacijenti koji nemaju uobičajeno boravište u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini mogu dobiti liječenje u okviru NHS-a, u načelu uz naknadu. Uredbom NHS-a iz 1989. o naplaćivanju troškova pacijentima iz stranih zemalja [NHS (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989] predviđeni su načini plaćanja i povrata troškova liječenja takvim pacijentima u okviru NHS-a. PCT-ovi su dužni osigurati takvo liječenje osim ako pacijent zadovoljava bilo koje kriterije izuzimanja navedene u toj uredbi. Ova uredba predviđa između ostaloga izuzimanja, s jedne strane, za liječenja u okviru bolničkih odjela za nesreće i hitne službe i, s druge strane, za poštovanje prava osoba koje su socijalno osigurane u drugoj državi članici.
23 The order for reference states that since Regulation No 1408/71 is directly applicable in all Member States there is no legislation implementing it in the United Kingdom. An NHS patient ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom may receive hospital treatment in another Member State pursuant to Article 22(1)(c) of that regulation, in which case reimbursement of the costs associated with that treatment is made in accordance with that regulation directly to the competent institution in the Member State in which the treatment was obtained at the rate of reimbursement applicable in that Member State. 
23 Iz zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku proizlazi da s obzirom da se Uredba br. 1408/01 izravno primjenjuje u svim državama članicama, ona nije bila predmet provedbenih mjera u britanskom pravu. Pacijent NHS-a s uobičajenim boravištem u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini može ostvariti bolničko liječenje u drugoj državi članici u skladu s člankom 22. stavkom 1. točkom (c) navedene uredbe. U takvom slučaju nadoknada troškova povezanih s takvim liječenjem provodi se u skladu s tom uredbom izravno u korist nadležne institucije države članice u kojoj je liječenje obavljeno po stopi nadoknade troškova koja se primjenjuje u toj državi članici.
24 Suffering from arthritis of the hips, Mrs Watts made enquiries of Bedford PCT as to the possibility of her undergoing surgery abroad under the E 112 scheme. 
24 Y. Watts, koja je patila od artritisa kukova, raspitivala se u Bedford PCT-u o mogućnosti operacije u inozemstvu u okviru obrasca E 112.
25 On 1 October 2002, she was seen by a UK consultant who informed Bedford PCT by letter of 28 October 2002 that Mrs Watts was as deserving as any of his other patients with severe arthritis, that her mobility was severely hampered and that she was in constant pain. He classified her case as ‘routine’, which meant a wait of approximately one year for surgery in a local hospital. 
25 Dana 1. listopada 2002. pregledao ju je britanski liječnik specijalist koji je u dopisu od 28. listopada 2002. obavijestio Bedford PCT da slučaj Y. Watts zaslužuje istu pažnju kao i bilo koji slučaj njegovih ostalih pacijenata s ozbiljnim artritisom, da je njezina pokretljivost ozbiljno ugrožena i da trpi stalne bolove. Njezin je slučaj uvrstio u kategoriju „rutinski slučaj”, što znači odgodu liječenja od otprilike godinu dana prije nego što bi bila operirana u lokalnoj bolnici.
26 On 21 November 2002, Bedford PCT informed Mrs Watts of its refusal to issue her with an E 112 form on the ground that the second condition set out in the second subparagraph of Article 22(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 was not satisfied. It considered that she could receive treatment in a local hospital ‘within the government’s NHS Plan targets’ and therefore ‘without undue delay’. 
26 Dana 21. studenoga 2002. Bedford PCT obavijestio je Y. Watts da joj odbija izdati obrazac E 112 na osnovi toga što drugi uvjet naveden u članku 22. stavku 2. drugom podstavku Uredbe br. 1408/71 nije zadovoljen. Smatrao je da bi liječenje mogla obaviti u lokalnoj bolnici „u roku sukladnom ciljevima iz vladinog plana socijalne sigurnosti” i stoga „bez neopravdanog kašnjenja”.
27 On 12 December 2002, Mrs Watts issued proceedings seeking permission to apply for judicial review of that refusal decision. 
27 Dana 12. prosinca 2002. Y. Watts je pokrenula postupak za dobivanje dozvole ulaganja tužbe za poništenje takve odluke o odbijanju.
28 On 22 January 2003, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), heard the application for permission. The court heard that, at the beginning of January 2003, Mrs Watts went to see a consultant in France who told her that her need for surgery was becoming more urgent because of a deterioration in her state of health. The Secretary of State for Health and Bedford PCT therefore suggested that Mrs Watts should be re-examined so that the decision of 21 November 2002 could be reconsidered. 
28 Dana 22. siječnja 2003. na High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) održano je saslušanje o dopustivosti te tužbe. Tijekom saslušanja bilo je navedeno da je početkom siječnja 2003. Y. Watts posjetila liječnika specijalista u Francuskoj koji je ocijenio da postoji sve veća nužnost operacije pacijentice zbog pogoršanja njezinog zdravstvenog stanja. Secretary of State for Health (ministar zdravlja) i Bedford PCT stoga su predložili da se Y. Watts ponovno pregleda kako bi se odluka od 21. studenoga 2002. mogla ponovno razmotriti.
29 On 31 January 2003, Mrs Watts was re-examined by the UK consultant who had examined her in October 2002. He wrote to Bedford PCT on the same day stating that Mrs Watts should now be categorised as a patient requiring surgery ‘soon’, in an intermediate category between the most urgent cases and the routine cases. That meant that she would be operated on within three or four months, in April or May 2003. 
29 Dana 31. siječnja 2003. Y. Watts ponovno je pregledao britanski liječnik specijalist koji ju je pregledao u listopadu 2002. U dopisu od istoga datuma upućenom Bedford PCT-u taj liječnik navodi da Y. Watts treba sada uvrstiti u kategoriju pacijenata koji trebaju biti operirani „skoro”, tj. u srednjoj kategoriji između najhitnijih slučajeva i rutinskih slučajeva. To je značilo da će biti operirana unutar tri do četiri mjeseca, tj. u travnju ili svibnju 2003.
30 On 4 February 2003, Bedford PCT repeated its refusal to issue an E 112 form on the ground that the waiting period for treatment locally had been reduced to three or four months. It repeated its reliance on the NHS Plan targets in concluding that there was no undue delay in Mrs Watts’s case. 
30 Dana 4. veljače 2003. Bedford PCT ponovno je odbio izdati obrazac E 112 na osnovi toga što je vrijeme čekanja na operaciju u lokalnoj bolnici skraćeno na tri ili četiri mjeseca. Ponovno se pozvao na ciljeve plana NHS-a prilikom zaključka da nije bilo neopravdanog kašnjenja u slučaju Y. Watts.
31 On 7 March 2003, Mrs Watts underwent a hip replacement operation in Abbeville (France). She paid the fees for that surgery, equivalent to GBP 3 900. 
31 Dana 7. ožujka 2003. Y. Watts si je dala ugraditi protezu za kuk u Abbevilleu (Francuska). Za tu je operaciju platila 3 900 GBP.
32 She continued with her application for permission to apply for judicial review of Bedford PCT’s refusal decision, claiming in addition reimbursement of the medical fees incurred in France. 
32 I dalje je ustrajala na postupku za dobivanje dozvole ulaganja tužbe za poništenje odluke Bedford PCT-a o odbijanju, zahtijevajući nadoknadu troškova liječenja nastalih u Francuskoj.
33 On 1 October 2003, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), which had reserved judgment until the delivery of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 May 2003 in Case C-385/99 Müller-Fauré and van Riet [2003] ECR I-4509, held that the medical services which Mrs Watts received in France fall within the scope of Article 49 EC notwithstanding the fact that the reimbursement of the costs of the treatment received is applied for under the NHS. 
33 Dana 1. listopada 2003. High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), koji je prekinuo postupak do donošenja presude Suda od 13. svibnja 2003., Müller-Fauré i van Riet (C-385/99, Zb., str. I-4509), presudio je da zdravstvene usluge kojima se Y. Watts koristila u Francuskoj ulaze u područje primjene članka 49. UEZ-a bez obzira na činjenicu što je zahtjev za nadoknadu troškova obavljenog liječenja predan u okviru NHS-a.
34 It nevertheless dismissed Mrs Watts’s application. Although it found that ‘any national authority properly directing itself in accordance with the principles laid down by the [Court], in particular [in Case C-157/99 Smits and Peerbooms [2001] ECR I-5473] and Muller-Fauré and van Riet, would have been bound to conclude in October-November 2002 that the anticipated delay of approximately one year was, on any view, “undue”, and thus such as to trigger the claimant’s right under Article 49 [EC] to reimbursement of the costs of obtaining more timely treatment in another Member State’, it nevertheless held that Mrs Watts had not had to face undue delay after her case was reassessed at the end of January 2003. The court held that a waiting time of between three and four months did not entitle Mrs Watts to have treatment abroad and claim reimbursement of the cost of that treatment from the NHS. 
34 Taj je sud ipak odbio zahtjev Y. Watts. Iako je procijenio da bi „svako nacionalno tijelo koje se ispravno rukovodi u skladu s načelima koje je [Sud] odredio, naročito u presudama [od 12. srpnja 2001., Smits i Peerbooms (C-157/99, Zb., str. I-5473.)] i Müller-Fauré i van Riet, trebalo zaključiti u listopadu odnosno -studenome 2002. da je predviđeno kašnjenje od otprilike godinu dana, ,neopravdanoʼ i kao takvo omogućuje korištenje prava na temelju članka 49. [UEZ-a] na nadoknadu troškova potrebnih za liječenje u razumnijem roku u drugoj državi članici”, ipak je presudio da se Y. Watts nije trebala suočiti s neopravdanim kašnjenjem nakon preispitivanja njezinog slučaja krajem siječnja 2003. Sud je utvrdio da vrijeme čekanja između tri i četiri mjeseca nije takvo da daje pravo Y. Watts na liječenje u inozemstvu i ne omogućava zahtijevanje povrata troškova takvog liječenja od NHS-a.
35 Mrs Watts and the Secretary of State for Health appealed against that judgment to the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division). Mrs Watts’s appeal was based primarily on the dismissal of her application for reimbursement and on the considerations set out in the judgment at first instance that the waiting time applicable in national law is a relevant factor in applying Article 49 EC and a factor of fundamental importance in the context of Article 22 of Regulation No 1408/71. The Secretary of State for Health’s appeal was based essentially on the argument that NHS patients are not entitled to rely on Article 49 EC, so that Mrs Watts’s case should be governed exclusively by Article 22 of Regulation No 1408/71. 
35 Y. Watts i Secretary of State for Health podnijeli su žalbu na tu presudu pred Court of Appeal (Engleska & Wales), Civil Division. Žalba Y. Watts prvenstveno se temeljila na odbijanju njezinog zahtjeva za nadoknadu troškova i razmatranjima navedenim u prvostupanjskoj presudi, prema kojima je vrijeme čekanja koje se primjenjuje u nacionalnom pravu relevantan čimbenik u primjeni članka 49. UEZ-a kao i čimbenik od velike važnosti u kontekstu članka 22. Uredbe br. 1408/71. Secretary of State for Health svoju je žalbu u bitnome temeljio na argumentu da pacijenti u okviru NHS-a nemaju pravo pozvati se na članak 49. UEZ-a, te bi se u slučaju Y. Watts trebalo ravnati isključivo primjenom članka 22. Uredbe br. 1408/71.
36 In a decision of 20 February 2004, the referring court states that, given the judgments in Smits and Peerbooms and Müller-Fauré and van Riet, national health services financed by the State, such as the NHS, fall within the scope of Article 49 EC. It adds, however, that it appears from paragraph 98 of the judgment in Müller-Fauré and van Riet that the right, based on that article, to receive treatment abroad is subject to there being a right to obtain treatment in the relevant Member State, which UK patients do not have under the NHS. 
36 U odluci od 20. veljače 2004. sud koji je uputio zahtjev ističe da s obzirom na ranije navedene presude Smits i Peerbooms kao i Müller-Fauré i van Riet, nacionalne zdravstvene službe koje financira država, poput NHS-a, ulaze u područje primjene članka 49. UEZ-a. Dodaje, međutim, kako iz točke 98. ranije navedene presude Müller-Fauré i van Riet, proizlazi da, na temelju toga članka, pravo na liječenje u inozemstvu podliježe postojanju prava na dobivanje liječenja u nadležnoj državi članici, koje britanski pacijenti nemaju u okviru NHS-a.
"37 It is of the view that, since medical treatment is a supply of services within the meaning of Article 49 EC, the national authorities responsible for financing health services may not, in principle, prevent residents from receiving treatment in another Member State unless such a restriction is justified by the need to maintain a balanced medical and hospital service which is available to everyone; such a justification may not, however, be invoked where it would result in undue delay in the provision of treatment to the patient in his Member State of residence." 
37 Mišljenja je da, s obzirom da su medicinske djelatnosti pružanje usluga u smislu članka 49. UEZ-a, nacionalna tijela odgovorna za financiranje zdravstvenih usluga ne smiju, u načelu, sprečavati državljane da liječenje obave u drugoj državi članici, osim ako je takvo ograničenje opravdano potrebom održavanja ravnoteže između svima dostupne zdravstvene i bolničke usluge, pri čemu se, međutim, na takvo opravdanje ne može pozivati ako bi ono rezultiralo neopravdanim kašnjenjem u pružanju liječenja pacijentu u njegovoj državi članici boravišta.
38 It states that, by virtue of the judgment in Case C-56/01 Inizan [2003] ECR I-12403, the concept of undue delay must be interpreted, in line with the second condition in the second subparagraph of Article 22(2) of Regulation No 1408/71, on the basis of clinical considerations arising in each individual case and not by having regard to normal waiting times and lists based on economic considerations. It asserts, however, that the Court has not yet given a clear answer as to how that concept should be interpreted. 
38 Navodi da, na temelju presude od 23. listopada 2003., Inizan (C-56/01, Zb., str. I-12403.), pojam neopravdanog kašnjenja treba tumačiti u skladu s drugim uvjetom iz članka 22. stavka 2. drugog podstavka Uredbe br. 1408/71, na osnovi kliničkih razmatranja u svakom pojedinačnom slučaju, a ne uzimajući u obzir normalno vrijeme čekanja i liste na temelju ekonomskih razmatranja. Međutim, potvrđuje da Sud još nije dao jasan odgovor o načinu tumačenja tog pojma.
39 It also raises the question, in the light of the Inizan judgment, of the relevance of budgetary considerations in the context of a case such as the present dispute in the main proceedings. It asks whether it must be found that a Member State is under an obligation to set aside resources to enable its nationals to receive treatment abroad within a shorter period, at the risk, first, of extending the waiting times for treatment in that Member State of more urgent cases and, second, of affecting the management of resources and the planning of the healthcare system in question. 
39 U svjetlu ranije navedene presude Inizan također postavlja pitanje o relevantnosti proračunskih razmatranja u kontekstu slučaja poput onog u glavnom postupku. Pita se treba li razmotriti da je država članica obvezna namijeniti sredstva kako bi se njezinim državljanima omogućilo da obave liječenje u inozemstvu u kraćem roku uz rizik, s jedne strane, produljenja vremena čekanja na liječenje u toj državi članici hitnijih slučajeva i, s druge strane, utjecaja na upravljanje sredstvima i planiranje dotičnog sustava zdravstvene skrbi.
40 Assuming such an obligation exists, the referring court asks whether the Member State concerned is required to reimburse the cost of treatment received abroad according to the legislation of the host Member State, pursuant to Article 22 of Regulation No 1408/71, or according to its own legislation, pursuant to Article 49 EC. It also asks whether travel and accommodation expenses must be taken into account in such a case. 
40 Pod pretpostavkom da takva obveza postoji, sud koji je uputio zahtjev pita se je li dotična država članica dužna nadoknaditi troškove liječenja u inozemstvu prema zakonodavstvu države članice privremenog boravišta, sukladno članku 22. Uredbe br. 1408/71 ili prema svojem vlastitom zakonodavstvu, sukladno članku 49. UEZ-a. Isto tako pita se treba li u takvom slučaju uzeti u obzir putne troškove i troškove smještaja.
41 The referring court stresses that a duty to reimburse according to the legislation of the competent Member State would mean, for a system such as the NHS in which healthcare is provided free of charge, a duty to reimburse in full. It considers therefore that if the concept of undue delay is to be assessed without regard to budgetary considerations, the application of Article 49 EC would involve the interference of Community law in the budgetary policy of the Member States in relation to public health, such as to raise questions with regard to Article 152(5) EC. 
41 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev ističe da bi obveza nadoknade troškova prema zakonodavstvu nadležne države članice značila, za sustav poput NHS-a u kojem je zdravstvena skrb besplatna, obvezu nadoknade troškova u cijelosti. Stoga smatra da bi, ako pojam neopravdanog kašnjenja treba ocjenjivati bez obzira na proračunska razmatranja, primjena članka 49. UEZ-a uključivala uplitanje prava Zajednice u proračunsku politiku država članica u pogledu javnog zdravlja, što bi prouzročilo postavljanje pitanja u vezi s člankom 152. stavkom 5. UEZ-a.
42 In those circumstances the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: 
42 U tim je okolnostima Court of Appeal (England & Wales), Civil Division, odlučio prekinuti postupak i uputiti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
‘(1) Having regard to the nature of the NHS and its position under national law, is Article 49 EC, read in the light of Geraets-Smits [and Peerbooms], Muller-Fauré [and van Riet] and Inizan, to be interpreted as meaning that in principle persons ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom enjoy an entitlement in EU law to receive hospital treatment in other Member States at the expense of the United Kingdom National Health Service (“the NHS”)? 
„(1) Uzimajući u obzir prirodu NHS-a i njegov položaj u nacionalnom pravu, treba li članak 49. UEZ-a, u svjetlu presuda Smits [i Peerbooms], Müller-Fauré [i van Riet] kao i Inizan, tumačiti na način da, u načelu, osobe s uobičajenim boravištem u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini prema pravu Zajednice imaju pravo na bolničko liječenje u drugim državama članicama na trošak NHS-a?
In particular, on the true interpretation of Article 49 EC: 
Posebno u pogledu pravilnog tumačenja članka 49. UEZ-a:
(a) Is there any distinction between a State-funded national health service such as the NHS and insurance funds such as the Netherlands ZFW scheme, in particular having regard to the fact that the NHS has no fund out of which payment must be made? 
(a) Postoji li razlika između nacionalne zdravstvene službe koju financira država kao što je NHS, s jedne strane, i osiguravateljskih fondova kao što je nizozemska shema ZFW, s druge strane, posebno s obzirom na činjenicu da NHS ne posjeduje nikakav fond iz kojeg bi se obavljala plaćanja?
(b) Is the NHS obliged to authorise and pay for such treatment in another Member State, notwithstanding that it is not obliged to authorise and pay for such treatment to be carried out privately by a United Kingdom service provider? 
(b) Mora li NHS odobriti i plaćati takvo liječenje u drugoj državi članici, iako nije obvezan odobriti i plaćati takvo liječenje koje pruža privatni pružatelj usluga u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini?
(c) Is it relevant if the patient secures the treatment independently of the relevant NHS body, and without prior authorisation or notification? 
(c) Je li bitno ako pacijent prima liječenje neovisno o nadležnom tijelu NHS-a i bez prethodnog odobrenja ili obavijesti?
(2) In answering Question 1, is it material whether hospital treatment provided by the NHS is itself the provision of services within Article 49 EC? 
(2) Je li za odgovor na prvo pitanje bitno znati čini li bolničko liječenje koje osigurava NHS pružanje usluga u smislu članka 49. UEZ-a?
If so, and in the circumstances set out in the statement of facts above, are Articles 48 EC, 49 EC and 50 EC to be interpreted as meaning that in principle: 
Ako je tako, i u okolnostima navedenima u gornjem iznošenju činjenica, treba li članak 48. [UEZ-a], članak 49. [UEZ-a] i članak 50. UEZ-a tumačiti na način da u načelu:
"(a) the provision of hospital treatment by NHS bodies constitutes the provision of services within Article 49 EC;" 
"(a) bolničko liječenje koje osiguravaju tijela NHS-a čini pružanje usluga u smislu članka 49. UEZ-a;"
"(b) a patient receiving hospital treatment under the NHS as such exercises a freedom to receive services within Article 49 EC; and" 
"(b) pacijent koji koristi bolničko liječenje u okviru NHS-a kao takvog, koristi svoje pravo primanja usluga u smislu članka 49. UEZ-a; i"
(c) NHS bodies providing hospital treatment are services providers within Articles 48 EC and 50 EC? 
(c) tijela NHS-a koja pružaju usluge bolničkog liječenja su pružatelji usluga u smislu članka 48. [UEZ-a] i članka 50. UEZ-a?
(3) If Article 49 EC applies to the NHS, may it or the Secretary of State rely as objective justification for refusing prior authorisation for hospital treatment in another Member State on: 
(3) Ako se članak 49. UEZ-a primjenjuje na NHS, može li se on ili ministar kao objektivno opravdanje za odbijanje prethodnog odobrenja za bolničko liječenje u drugoj državi članici pozvati na:
"(a) the fact that authorisation would seriously undermine the NHS system of administering medical priorities through waiting lists;" 
"(a) činjenicu da bi takvo odobrenje ozbiljno narušilo sustav NHS-a gdje se zdravstvenim prioritetima upravlja putem lista čekanja;"
"(b) the fact that authorisation would permit patients with less urgent medical needs to gain priority over patients with more urgent medical needs;" 
"(b) činjenicu da bi takvo odobrenje omogućilo pacijentima s manje hitnim zdravstvenim potrebama stjecanje prednosti pred pacijentima s hitnijim zdravstvenim potrebama;"
"(c) the fact that authorisation would have the effect of diverting resources to pay for less urgent treatment for those who are willing to travel abroad, thus adversely affecting others who do not wish or are not able to travel abroad or increasing costs of NHS bodies;" 
"(c) činjenicu da bi takvo odobrenje prouzročilo preusmjeravanje sredstava za plaćanje manje hitnih liječenja pacijentima koji su spremni putovati u inozemstvo, što bi negativno utjecalo na one koji ne žele ili nisu u mogućnosti putovati u inozemstvo ili bi povećalo troškove tijelima NHS-a;"
"(d) the fact that authorisation may require the United Kingdom to provide additional funding for the NHS budget or to restrict the range of treatments available under the NHS;" 
"(d) činjenicu da takvo odobrenje može zahtijevati od Ujedinjene Kraljevine da u proračunu NHS-a osigura dodatna sredstva ili ograniči opseg liječenja dostupan u okviru NHS-a;"
(e) the comparative costs of the treatment and the incidental costs thereof in the other Member State? 
(e) usporedne troškove liječenja i njegove popratne troškove u drugoj državi članici?