Kohll v Union des Caisses de Maladie
A national rule requiring prior authorisation for reimbursement of the costs of medical treatment in another Member State restricted the freedom to provide services.
Facts
Mr Kohll, a Luxembourg national, asked his health insurance fund for authorisation for his daughter to receive orthodontic treatment from an orthodontist in Germany. Under Luxembourg rules, such treatment would only be reimbursed if it had been authorised in advance. Authorisation was refused, because the treatment was not urgent and could be provided in Luxembourg.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that the requirement of prior authorisation was a restriction on the freedom to provide services, because it deterred insured persons from approaching providers of medical services established in another Member State. It could not be justified by the risk of seriously undermining the financial balance of the social security system, because reimbursement was at the same rates as in Luxembourg, or by the need to maintain a balanced medical and hospital service, because it concerned treatment outside a hospital. The protection of public health could not justify it either, because the conditions for practising as a doctor had been harmonised.
Related cases on freedom of establishment and services
- Alpine Investments BV v Minister van Financiën Case C-384/93, [1995] ECR I-1141
- Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department Case C-60/00, [2002] ECR I-6279
- Cartesio Oktató és Szolgáltató bt Case C-210/06, [2008] ECR I-9641
- Centros Ltd v Erhvervs og Selskabsstyrelsen Case C-212/97, [1999] ECR I-1459
- Gebhard v Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano Case C-55/94, [1995] ECR I-4165
- HM Customs and Excise v Schindler Case C-275/92, [1994] ECR I-1039
- International Transport Workers' Federation v Viking Line ABP Case C-438/05, [2007] ECR I-10779
- Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd Case C-167/01, [2003] ECR I-10155
Studying EU Law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
