30.4.2004

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/5

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

18 March 2004

In Case C-8/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen): Ludwig Leichtle v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (1)

(Freedom to provide services - Sickness insurance scheme for civil servants - Health cure taken in another Member State - Expenditure on board, lodging, travel, visitors tax and a final medical report - Conditions for reimbursement - Prior declaration of eligibility for assistance - Criteria - Justification)

(2004/C 106/07)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-8/02: References to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Ludwig Leichtle and Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, on the interpretation of Articles 49 EC and 50 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 March 2004, in which it has ruled:

Articles 49 EC and 50 EC are to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude rules of a Member State, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which reimbursement of expenditure incurred on board, lodging, travel, visitors tax and the making of a final medical report in connection with a health cure taken in another Member State is conditional on obtaining prior recognition of eligibility, which is given only provided it is established, in a report drawn up by a medical officer or a medical consultant, that the proposed cure is absolutely necessary owing to the greatly increased prospects of success in that other Member State.

Articles 49 EC and 50 EC are to be interpreted as meaning that they do not in principle preclude rules of a Member State, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which expenditure incurred on board, lodging, travel, visitors tax and the making of a final medical report in connection with a health cure, whether taken in that Member State or in another Member State, is made only where the health spa concerned is listed in the Register of Health Spas. However, it is for the national court to ensure that any conditions to which the registration of a health spa in such a register may be subject are objective and do not have the effect of making the provision of services between Member States more difficult than the provision of services purely within the Member State concerned.

Articles 49 EC and 50 EC are to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the application of national rules under which the reimbursement of expenditure incurred on board, lodging, travel, visitors tax and the making of a final medical report in connection with a health cure taken in another Member State is precluded where the person concerned has not awaited the conclusion of the court proceedings brought against the decision refusing to recognise that expenditure as eligible for assistance before commencing the cure in question.

(1) OJ C 84 of 6.04.2002.