Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Case Law of the European Court of Justice on the Mobility of Patients: An Assessment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Health Care and EU Law

Part of the book series: Legal Issues of Services of General Interest ((LEGAL))

Abstract

This means that I shall not deal with other interesting issues such as the free movement of health care providers, with the other free movement rules relevant to health policy (for example, the free movement of pharmaceutical products or the freedom of establishment), and with the influence of the competition rules on health care. In all these issues, it seems to me, health is secondary or at most as important as the underlying economic interests. In the cases about the free movement of patients, in contrast, health and the liberty of individuals to receive treatment where they prefer are the main concern and the economic issues seem to be secondary. This is the reason for the specificity of the case law on the mobility of patients, and also what makes it so unusual, problematic and interesting.

The opinions expressed in this chapter are purely personal and do not necessarily coincide with those of the Commission or of its Legal Service. Thanks are due to Chiara Cattabriga for comments and suggestions on a first draft. The chapter reflects the law as it stood in January 2010. For more recent case law, see the conclusions to this volume.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    ECJ, Case C-120/95 Decker [1998] ECR I-1831; Case C-158/96 Kohll [1998] ECR I-1931.

  2. 2.

    On these issues, see, for example, Scharpf (2002), p. 645, and his more recent views in Scharpf (2009), p. 173; see also my critique in Baquero Cruz (2007), p. 1105.

  3. 3.

    Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ L 166, of 30 April 2004, p. 1), which replaces Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ L 149, of 5 July 1971, p. 2). On the Regulation, see the chapter by Pennings.

  4. 4.

    Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare Brussels (2 July 2008, COM(2008) 414 final).

  5. 5.

    ECJ, Joined Cases 286/82 and 26/83 Luisi and Carbone [1984] ECR 377.

  6. 6.

    ECJ, Case C-208/07, von Chamier-Glisczinski [2009] ECR I-6095.

  7. 7.

    Cited in n. 1 supra.

  8. 8.

    Ibid.

  9. 9.

    ECJ, Case C-368/98 Vanbraekel and others [2001] ECR I-5363; ECJ, Case C-157/99 Smits and Peerbooms [2001] ECR I-5473.

  10. 10.

    ECJ, Case C-385/99 Müller-Fauré and van Riet [2003] ECR I-4509.

  11. 11.

    ECJ, Case C-372/04 Watts [2006] ECR I-4325.

  12. 12.

    ECJ, Case C-56/01 Inizan [2003] ECR I-12403.

  13. 13.

    ECJ, Case C-8/02 Leichtle [2004] ECR I-2641.

  14. 14.

    ECJ, Case C-444/05 Stamatelaki [2007] ECR I-3185.

  15. 15.

    ECJ, Case C-145/03 Keller [2005] ECR I-2529.

  16. 16.

    ECJ, Case C-466/04 Acereda Herrera [2006] ECR I-5341.

  17. 17.

    Luisi and Carbone, cited in n. 5 supra, para 16.

  18. 18.

    Kohll, cited in n. 1 supra, para 29.

  19. 19.

    ECJ, Case 263/86 Humbel [1988] ECR 5365.

  20. 20.

    ECJ, Joined Cases C-159/91 and C-160/91 Poucet and Pistre [1993] ECR I-637.

  21. 21.

    Vanbraekel and Smits–Peerbooms, cited in n. 9 supra, paras 41 and 53.

  22. 22.

    See Hatzopoulos (2002), p. 683 at p. 693.

  23. 23.

    Smits–Peerbooms, cited in n. 9 supra, para 49.

  24. 24.

    Ibid., para 108.

  25. 25.

    Ibid., para 90. These requirements were first mentioned in ECJ, Case C-205/99 Analir [2001] ECR I-1271, para 38.

  26. 26.

    Müller-Fauré and van Riet, cited in n. 10 supra, para 75.

  27. 27.

    In this sense, Hervey (2006–2007), p. 261 at p. 268.

  28. 28.

    Watts, cited in n. 11 supra, paras 90 and 91.

  29. 29.

    Spaventa (2007), pp. 56–58.

  30. 30.

    Watts, cited in n. 11 supra, para 118.

  31. 31.

    Ibid., para 119.

  32. 32.

    Ibid., para 120.

  33. 33.

    ECJ, Case C-160/96 Molenaar [1998] ECR I-843.

  34. 34.

    Von Chamier-Glisczinski, cited in n. 6 supra, para 55.

  35. 35.

    ECJ, Case C-352/06 Bosmann [2008] ECR I-3827.

  36. 36.

    Von Chamier-Glisczinski, cited in n. 6 supra, para 66.

  37. 37.

    Ibid., para 78.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., para 83.

  39. 39.

    Ibid., para 84.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., para 85. A similar approach was followed in ECJ Case C-403/03, Schempp [2005] ECR I-6421, concering EU citizenship, non-discrimination on the basis of nationality and deductions from the revenue tax.

  41. 41.

    ECJ, Case C-70/95 Sodemare [1997] ECR I-3395, para 32. See, in contrast Case C-169/07 Hartlauer [2009] ECR I-1721. See also the chapter by Baeten and Palm in this volume.

  42. 42.

    Cited in n. 20 supra.

  43. 43.

    ECJ, Case C-67/96 Albany [1999] ECR I-5751.

  44. 44.

    See ECJ, Case C-318/05 Commission v. Germany [2007] ECR I-6957, para 68.

  45. 45.

    ECJ, Case C-519/04 P Meca-Medina and Majcen v. Commission [2006] ECR I-6991, paras 32 and 33. The same distinction is made in the communication of the Commission on Services of general interest, including social services of general interest: a new European commitment, of 20 November 2007, COM(2007) 725 final, p. 5. On these issues, see Odudu (2009), p. 225.

  46. 46.

    Compare Hatzopoulos (2002), p. 723, for whom the existence of a ‘core’ solidarity activity will have a different bearing on free movement and on competition. For the competition rules, it would entail their inapplicability. For the free movement rules, the presence of such a conduct would mean that they ‘are only infringed by discriminatory measures, not mere hindrances’. The existence of ‘core’ solidarity activities would thus become ‘yet another “overriding reason”.’

  47. 47.

    ECJ, Joined Cases C-267/91 and C-268/91 Keck and Mithouard ECR [1993] I-6097.

  48. 48.

    ECJ, Case C-60/00 Carpenter [2002] ECR I-6279. On this judgment, see Acierno (2003), p. 398.

  49. 49.

    Cited in n. 6 supra.

  50. 50.

    ECJ, Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk [2001] ECR I-6193, para 44.

  51. 51.

    ECJ, Case C-138/02 Collins [2004] ECR I-2703, paras 67–72.

  52. 52.

    ECJ, Case C-173/09. A summary of the reference has been published in the OJ C 180, of 1 August 2009, p. 28. The judgment of the Court was delivered on 5 October 2010 (confirming the expansive approach of the Court to the rights of patients).

  53. 53.

    Commission adopts proposal for directive on patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, IP/08/1080, Brussels, 2 July 2008.

  54. 54.

    Cited in n. 4 supra.

  55. 55.

    See ECJ, Case C-211/08 Commission v. Spain (summary publication in OJ C 197 of 2 February 2008, p. 12); Case C-512/08 Commission v. France (OJ C 44 of 21 February 2009, p. 29). The cases were respectively decided by judgments of15 June 2010 and of 5 October 2010. Both were rejected by the Court, perhaps suggesting a shift towards a more restrictive approach in this field (which would however be at odds with the more expansive approach in the Elchinor judgement, mentioned in the previous section), and/or reflecting the increasingly difficult burden of proof that the Commission bears in infringement proceedings pursuant to Article 258 TFEU.

  56. 56.

    European Parliament, Report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare (rapporteur: John Bowis, A6-0233/2009, of 3 April 2009, p. 147).

  57. 57.

    By the end of January 2011, a political agreement seems to exist on the Directive, but the final text is not known.

  58. 58.

    See the references in n. 2 supra.

  59. 59.

    For this view, see Newdick (2006), p. 1645. See also his chapter in this book.

  60. 60.

    For this second view, see Hervey (2006–2007), p. 285; editorial comment, CML Rev (2008), p. 1326; and the Report of the European Parliament cited in n. 56 supra, p. 77.

  61. 61.

    Dougan (2009), at pp. 121 and 132.

References

  • Acierno S (2003) The Carpenter judgment: fundamental rights and the limits of the Community legal order. ELRev 28

    Google Scholar 

  • Baquero Cruz J (2007) The socioeconomic model of the european union: stuck with the status quo? In: Amato G, Bribosia H, de Witte B (eds) Genèse et destinée de la Constitution européenne. Bruylant, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougan M (2009) Expanding the frontiers of union citizenship by dismantling the boundaries of the national welfare states? In: Barnard C, Odudu O (eds) The outer limits of European Union Law. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatzopoulos V (2002). Killing National Health and Insurance Systems but Healing Patients? The European Market for Health Care Services after the Judgments of the ECJ in Vanbraekel and Peerbooms. CML Rev 3

    Google Scholar 

  • Hervey TK (2006–2007) The Current Legal Framework on the Right to Seek Healthcare Abroad in the European Union. The Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, Oxford, Hart

    Google Scholar 

  • Newdick C (2006) Citizenship, free movement and health care: cementing individual rights by corroding social solidarity. CML Rev 43

    Google Scholar 

  • Odudu O (2009) Economic activity as a limit to community law. In: Barnard C, Odudu O (eds) The outer limits of European Union Law. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf F (2002) The European social model: coping with the challenges of diversity. J Common Market Stud 40(4)

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf F (2009). Legitimacy in the multilevel European polity. Eur Polit Sci Rev 1(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaventa E (2007) Free movement of persons in the European Union: barriers to movement in their constitutional context (Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Legal Service of the European Commission, Brussels Europe, Belgium

    Julio Baquero Cruz

Authors
  1. Julio Baquero Cruz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julio Baquero Cruz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Faculty of Law, Radboud University, Comeniuslaan 4, Nijmegen, 6525 HP, The Netherlands

    Johan Willem van de Gronden

  2. , School of Law, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH, United Kingdom

    Erika Szyszczak

  3. , Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Studiestræde 6, Copenhagen K, 1455, Denmark

    Ulla Neergaard

  4. , Fachbereich Rechtswissenschaft, Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Schillerstraße 1, Erlangen, 91054, Germany

    Markus Krajewski

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 T.M.C.ASSER PRESS and the author

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Baquero Cruz, J. (2011). The Case Law of the European Court of Justice on the Mobility of Patients: An Assessment. In: van de Gronden, J., Szyszczak, E., Neergaard, U., Krajewski, M. (eds) Health Care and EU Law. Legal Issues of Services of General Interest. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-728-9_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation