Where a member of a sickness scheme sought treatment in another member state, it was proper to require prior authorisation, but any conditions imposed had to be justifiable and proportionate. In this case the scheme required the recognition of the treatment sought, and that immediate treatment in the country was not available. Hospital services were capable of constituting economic activity, and were accordingly required to be free of restraint by Community law. Re-imbursement by a member state’s sickness benefits scheme did not take it out of the scope of Article 60. The additional restrictions were valid only in so far as they required that the treatment be tried and tested, or that equivalent treatment was available locally without undue delay.
Judges:
GC Rodriguez Iglesias, President and Judges C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P.
Jann, L. Sevon, R. Schintgen and F. Macken Advocate General D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer
Citations:
Times 03-Sep-2001, Case C-157/99
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
European
Cited by:
Applied – Watts, Regina (on the Application of) v Bedford Primary Care Trust and others Admn 1-Oct-2003
The claimant sought hip-replacement treatment. She was first told that she would have to wait a year. As her lawyers pressed the respondent, she looked at obtaining treatment in France. As she decided to take the treatment, the respondent reduced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health, Benefits, Commercial
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.162937