Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document C2007/155/15

Case C-169/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 30 March 2007 — Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Wiener Landesregierung and Oberösterreichische Landesregierung

OJ C 155, 7.7.2007, p. 8–9 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

7.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/8

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 30 March 2007 — Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Wiener Landesregierung and Oberösterreichische Landesregierung

(Case C-169/07)

(2007/C 155/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH

Defendant: Wiener Landesregierung and Oberösterreichische Landesregierung

Questions referred

1.

Does Article 43 EC (in conjunction with Article 48 EC) preclude the application of national legislation under which authorisation is required to set up a private hospital in the form of an independent outpatient clinic for dental medicine (dental clinic) and that authorisation is to be refused if, according to the stated purpose of the institution and the range of services envisaged, there is no need for the planned outpatient dental clinic having regard to the existing provision of care by established doctors working on a contractual basis with sickness funds, institutions owned by sickness funds and institutions contracted to sickness funds and by established dentists working on a contractual basis with sickness funds?

2.

Is the answer to Question 1 any different if the existing provision of care by outpatient clinics of public, private non-profit making and other hospitals working on a contractual basis with sickness funds is also to be included in the examination as to need?
Top