Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Compatibility of Health Care Capacity Planning Policies with EU Internal Market Rules

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Health Care and EU Law

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

Abstract

The interplay between EU internal market rules and health system regulation has generated heated debates for over more than a decade. Initiated by the seminal case law of the European Court of Justice on the use of prior authorisation systems to control the access to, and statutory reimbursement of, health care services purchased outside the Member State of affiliation, the discussion went beyond the scope of patient mobility to also question the compatibility of other regulatory measures with EU principles of free movement and freedom of establishment.

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.

    Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on services in the internal market, COM(2004) 2 final of 13 January 2004.

  2. 2.

    Article 23 Proposal supra n. 1.

  3. 3.

    See the chapter by Szyszczak in this book.

  4. 4.

    Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on services in the internal market, COM(2006) 160 final of 4 April 2006.

  5. 5.

    Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the application of patients' rights in cross-border health care, COM(2008) 414 of 2 July 2008.

  6. 6.

    See also Gekiere et al. (2010), pp. 461–508.

  7. 7.

    Ettelt et al. (2008), pp. 47–67.

  8. 8.

    Ibid.

  9. 9.

    Ibid.

  10. 10.

    Taylor (2004), pp. 196–212.

  11. 11.

    Bloor and Maynard (2003).

  12. 12.

    de Bijl and Nederveen-Van de Kragt (1997), pp. 5–18.

  13. 13.

    See for example, Levine and Forrence (1990), pp. 167–198.

  14. 14.

    Dubois (2006) , pp. 175–176.

  15. 15.

    Ettelt et al. (2008).

  16. 16.

    ECJ, Joined Cases C-171/07 and C-172/07 Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes and Others [2009] ECR I-0000 (n.y.r.).

  17. 17.

    ECJ, Case C-299/02 Commission v. Netherlands [2004] ECR I-9761, para 15, and ECJ, Case C-140/03 Commission v. Greece [2005] ECR I-3177, para 27.

  18. 18.

    See also Gekiere et al. (2010).

  19. 19.

    ECJ, Case C-169/07 Hartlauer [2009] ECR I-0000 (n.y.r.), para 34.

  20. 20.

    Ibid., para 35.

  21. 21.

    Ibid., para 38, see also ECJ, Case C-531/06 Commission v. Italy [2009] ECR I-0000 (n.y.r.), para 44.

  22. 22.

    Hartlauer, ibid., para 36.

  23. 23.

    ECJ, Joined Cases C-570/07 and C-571/07 José Manuel Blanco Pérez and María del Pilar Chao Gómez v. Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios, Principado de Asturias [2010] ECR I-0000 (n.y.r.).

  24. 24.

    Ibid., para 53–60.

  25. 25.

    ECJ, Case C-55/94 Gebhard [1995] ECR I-4165, para 37. See also ECJ, Case C-170/04 Rosengren and Others [2005] ECR I-4071, para 43, and ECJ, Case C-500/06 Corporación Dermoestética [2008] ECR I-0000 (n.y.r.), para 35.

  26. 26.

    ECJ, Case C-158/96 Kohll [1998] ECR I-1931, para 46.

  27. 27.

    José Manuel Blanco Pérez and María del Pilar Chao Gómez, supra n. 23, para 65.

  28. 28.

    Ibid., para 90.

  29. 29.

    Rosas (2010), pp. 433–446.

  30. 30.

    Kohll, supra n. 26, para 41.

  31. 31.

    Ibid., para 76.

  32. 32.

    ECJ, Case C-385/99 Müller-Fauré and van Riet [2003] ECR I-4509, paras 77, 78 and ECJ, Case C-157/99 Smits and Peerbooms [2001] ECR I-5473, paras 76, 78, 79.

  33. 33.

    Smits and Peerbooms, supra n. 32, para 81 and Müller-Fauré and van Riet, supra n. 32, para 82 and ECJ, Case C-372/04 Watts [2006] ECR I-4325, para 111.

  34. 34.

    Smits and Peerbooms, supra n. 32, paras 105, 106.

  35. 35.

    Hartlauer, supra n. 19, para 49.

  36. 36.

    Watts,supra n. 33, paras 67 and 68.

  37. 37.

    ECJ, Case C-141/07 Commission v. Germany [2008] ECR I-6935.

  38. 38.

    Müller-Fauré and van Riet,supra n. 32, paras 93, 95.

  39. 39.

    Smits and Peerbooms, supra n. 32, para 76.

  40. 40.

    Hartlauer, supra n. 19, para 49.

  41. 41.

    Ibid., para 52.

  42. 42.

    Ibid., para 53.

  43. 43.

    Hartlauer, supra n. 19, Opinion of the Advocate General, para 105.

  44. 44.

    Ibid., para 42 and Opinion of the Advocate General, para 74.

  45. 45.

    José Manuel Blanco Pérez and María del Pilar Chao Gómez, supra n. 23, para 70–71.

  46. 46.

    Hartlauer, supra n. 19, para 42 and Opinion of the Advocate General, para 92.

  47. 47.

    Supra n. 5.

  48. 48.

    Hartlauer, supra n. 19 and Opinion of the Advocate General, fn 44.

  49. 49.

    ECJ, Case C-512/08 Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic. In this recent case, the Court accepted that the considerations expressed in respect of medical services provided in a hospital setting, can be reproduced with regard to medical services involving the use of major medical equipment, even if those services are supplied outside such a setting. [2010], para 34, (n.y.r.), 5 October 2010.

  50. 50.

    ECJ, Case C-456/05 Commission v. Germany [2007] ECR I-10517.

  51. 51.

    Ibid., para 63.

  52. 52.

    ECJ, Case C-73/08 Bressol and Chaverot [2010] ECR I-0000 (n.y.r.).

  53. 53.

    Ibid., para 69.

  54. 54.

    Simonet (2006a, b).

  55. 55.

    Gebhard, supra n. 25, para 37.

  56. 56.

    Gekiere et al. (2010).

  57. 57.

    Commission v. Italy, supra n. 21, para 36.

  58. 58.

    Hartlauer, supra n. 19, para 30; Commission v. Germany, supra n. 38, para 51; Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes and Others,supra n. 16, para 19; Commission v. Italy, supra n. 21, para 36.

  59. 59.

    Commission v. Germany,supra n. 37, para 51, José Manuel Blanco Pérez and María del Pilar Chao Gómez, supra n. 23, para 44.

  60. 60.

    OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22.

  61. 61.

    José Manuel Blanco Pérez and María del Pilar Chao Gómez, supra n. 23, para 45.

  62. 62.

    Ibid., para 50.

  63. 63.

    Commission v. Italy, supra n. 21, para 54, José Manuel Blanco Pérez and María del Pilar Chao Gómez, supra n. 23, para 74; Bressol and Chaverot, supra n. 52, para 70.

  64. 64.

    Bressol and Chaverot, supra n. 52, para 70.

  65. 65.

    Commission v. Italy, supra n. 21, para 84.

  66. 66.

    José Manuel Blanco Pérez and María del Pilar Chao Gómez, supra n. 23, Opinion of the Advocate General, para 17.

  67. 67.

    Ibid., Opinion of the Advocate General, para 18.

  68. 68.

    Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle, COM(2000) 1 final of 2 February 2000.

  69. 69.

    Bressol and Chaverot, supra n. 52, para 71.

  70. 70.

    See for example, José Manuel Blanco Pérez and María del Pilar Chao Gómez, supra n. 23, para 112.

  71. 71.

    Commission v. Germany, supra n. 50, para 72.

  72. 72.

    Hartlauer, supra n. 19, para 55.

  73. 73.

    José Manuel Blanco Pérez and María del Pilar Chao Gómez, supra n. 23, Opinion of the Advocate General, para 32.

  74. 74.

    Ibid., Opinion of the Advocate General, para 21.

  75. 75.

    See for example, ECJ, Case C-360/04 Placanica and Others [2007] ECR I-1891, para 55.

  76. 76.

    José Manuel Blanco Pérez an d María del Pilar Chao Gómez, supra n. 23, para 94–103.

  77. 77.

    Hartlauer, supra n. 19, para 60.

  78. 78.

    Ibid., para 61.

  79. 79.

    Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes and Others,supra n. 16 and Commission v. Italy, supra n. 21.

  80. 80.

    Hartlauer, supra n. 19, para 59.

  81. 81.

    Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes and Others,supra n. 16, para 37.

  82. 82.

    Ibid., para 39.

  83. 83.

    Hartlauer, supra n. 19, para 64.

  84. 84.

    Ibid., para 66.

  85. 85.

    Ibid., para 69.

  86. 86.

    Ibid., para 70.

  87. 87.

    Ibid., Opinion of the Advocate General, para 99.

  88. 88.

    Ibid., para 93.

  89. 89.

    See Sect. 16.3.

  90. 90.

    See Sect. 16.4.

  91. 91.

    See Sect. 16.4.

  92. 92.

    See Sect. 16.5.

  93. 93.

    Hartlauer, supra n. 19, Opinion of the Advocate General, Fn 37.

  94. 94.

    Müller-Fauré and van Riet, supra n. 33.

  95. 95.

    Ritter (2006), accessed on 17 June 2010.

References

  • Bloor K, Maynard A (2003) Planning human resources in health care: towards an economic approach. An international comparative review. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bijl N, de Nederveen-Van Kragt I (1997) ‘Legal safeguards against medical practice by not suitably qualified persons: a comparative study in seven EU countries. Eur J Health Law 4

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois CA (2006) Reshaping the regulation of the workforce in European health care systems. In: Dubois CA, McKee M, Nolte E (eds) Human resources for health in Europe. Open University Press, Berkshire

    Google Scholar 

  • Ettelt S et al (2008) Planning health care capacity: whose responsibility? In: Rechel B et al (eds) Investing in hospitals of the future. WHO on behalf of European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Gekiere W et al (2010) EU law and the freedom to provide services and health care. In: Mossialos E, Permanand G, Baeten R, Hervey T (eds) Health systems governance in Europe: the role of EU law and policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine M, Forrence J (1990) Regulatory capture, public interest, and the public agenda: toward a synthesis. J Law Econ Organ. 6(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritter C (2006) Purely Internal situations, reverse discrimination, Guimont, Dzodzi and article 234. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=954242

  • Rosas A (2010) Life after Dassonville and Cassis: evolution but no revolution. In: Poiares Maduro M, Azoulai L (eds) The past and future of EU law. The classics of EU law revisited on the 50th anniversary of the Rome treaty. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonet MD (2006a) Avant-projet de décret régulant le nombre d’étudiants dans certaines filières: le Gouvernement poursuit la concertation. Press release of the Minister for Higher Education of the Communauté française (9 March)

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonet MD (2006b) Préserver un enseignement supérieur de qualité et de proximité pour les étudiants de la Communauté française: limitation à 30% du nombre d’étudiants non-résidents, Press release of the Minister for Higher Education of the Communauté française (3 February)

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor D (2004) Regulating pharmaceutical distribution and retail pharmacy in Europe. In: Mossialos E et al (eds) Regulating pharmaceuticals in Europe: striving for efficiency equity and quality. Open University Press, Buckingham

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

Thanks to Herwig Verschueren, Miek Peeters, Marleen Steenbrugghe, and Irene Glinos for comments on an earlier draft of this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Social Observatory (OSE), Brussels, Belgium

    Rita Baeten

  2. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, Brussels, Belgium

    Willy Palm

Authors
  1. Rita Baeten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Willy Palm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rita Baeten .

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

Baeten, R., Palm, W. (2011). The Compatibility of Health Care Capacity Planning Policies with EU Internal Market Rules. 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_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation