Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:34:06.301Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fundamental Freedoms Strengthen the Rights of Patients (again)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Alexander Weiss
Alexander Weiss*
Affiliation:
University of Augsburg, Germany.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Case C-255/09 Commission v Portugal

The Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC (Article 56 TFEU) by making no provision for reimbursement of non-hospital medical care provided in another Member State which does not involve the use of major and costly equipment exhaustively listed in the national legislation, other than in the circumstances specified in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 […] or, to the extent that Decree-Law No 177/92 allows reimbursement in respect of such care, by making such reimbursement subject to prior authorization (official headnote).

Type
Case Notes
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 261 - 263
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Case C-255/09, European Commission v. Portuguese Republic, [2009] (n.y.r.).

2 For previous cases see e.g. C-158/96, Raymond Kohll v Union des caisses de maladie [1998], ECR I-01931 (hereafter “Kohll”); C-385/99, VG Müller-Fauré v Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschapij OZ Zorgverzekeringen UA [2003], ECRI I-4509 ( hereafter “Müller- Fauré”); C-490/09, Commission v Luxemburg [2011] (n.y.r.); C-512/08, Commission v France [2010] (n.y.r.).

3 Case C-255/09, supra note 1, at para 93.

4 Ibid., see para 46.

5 Case C-255/09, supra note 1, at para 49–51, referring to case C-490/09 Commission v Luxemburg.

6 Case C-385/99, Müller-Fauré, supra note 2.

7 Case C-385/99, Müller-Fauré, supra note 2.

8 This exception has been made in Case C-512/08, supra note 2.

9 Case C-255/09, supra note 1, at para 90 (headline).

10 Case C-255/09, supra note 1, at para 90 to 92.

11 Case C-255/09, supra note 1, at para 40.

12 Case C-255/09, supra note 1, at para 60 (headline).

13 Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak in Case C-255/09, supra note 1, at para 94.

14 Case C-255/09, supra note 1, at para 70; already decided in Case C-158/96, Kohll, supra note 2, at paras 25 to 27.

15 Case C-158/96, Kohll, supra note 2, at para 25 to 27.

16 Case C-158/96, Kohll, supra note 2, at para 25 to 27.

17 Case C-255/09, supra note 1, at para, 80 to 83, referring to Case C-158/96, Kohll, supra note 2 at para 45 to 50.

18 Case C-255/09, supra note 1, at para 84 to 89, referring to case C-385/99, Müller-Fauré, supra note 2, at paras 105 to 107.

19 Case C-255/09, supra note 1, at para 77, referring to case C-385/99, Müller-Fauré, supra note 2, at para 96.

20 Different view by Republic of Portugal in case C-255/09, supra note 1, at para 36.