Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

BUPA; A Healthy Case, in the Light of a Changing Constitutional Setting in Europe?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Health Care and EU Law

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

Abstract

The much-debated and intensely explored BUPA case does not only shed light on the application of the Altmark conditions in the field of state aid law, but may also have reinforced the merely ancillary and supportive role of the EU in the field of health care. It fits well in the ‘sovereignty debate’ in Europe and appears to meet Member States’ or even citizens’ demands to increasingly decide for themselves how social issues, like health care, must be handled by their government.

Contribution received in 2010.

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.

    GC, Case T-289/03, BUPA v. Commission [2008] ECR II-81.

  2. 2.

    Vedder (2008), p. 1.

  3. 3.

    Sauter, for instance, takes a critical stance: Sauter (2009), pp. 269–286. For a more positive response: Ross (2009), pp. 125–140.

  4. 4.

    Neergaard (2009a, b).

  5. 5.

    The Council Conclusions on Common values and principles in European Health Systems, OJ 2006, C 156/1; van de Gronden (2009), p. 7.

  6. 6.

    Lavrijssen and de Vries (2009), p. 388.

  7. 7.

    ECJ, Case C-41/90 Höfner and Elser [1991] ECR I-1979.

  8. 8.

    van de Gronden (2009), at p. 9; ECJ, Joined Cases C-180/98 to 184/98 Pavlov [2000] ECR I-6451; ECJ, Case C-475/99 Ambulanz Glöckner [2001] ECR I-8089.

  9. 9.

    van de Gronden (2009), at p. 8. For example, ECJ, Joined Cases C-264/01 C-306/01, C-351/01 and C-355/01 AOK et al. [2004] ECR I-2493.

  10. 10.

    ECJ, Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans [2003] ECR I-7747, para 87.

  11. 11.

    van de Gronden (2009), at p. 17.

  12. 12.

    For example, Sauter (2009), at p. 274.

  13. 13.

    Para 27 of BUPA.

  14. 14.

    Ibid., para 32.

  15. 15.

    Ibid., para 33.

  16. 16.

    For example, Sauter (2009), at p. 283.

  17. 17.

    See with regard to the Dutch scheme the chapter of Sauter in this book. Cf., van de Gronden (2009), at pp. 16–17.

  18. 18.

    van de Gronden (2009), at p. 17.

  19. 19.

    With respect to the ‘state aid approach’, see, for example, GC Case T-46/97 SIC SA v. Commission (here the General Court annulled the Commission Decision, which was based on the ‘compensation approach’); with regard to the ‘compensation approach’ (before Altmark), see, for example, ECJ, Case C-53/00 Ferring SA [2001] ECR I-9067 and ECJ, Case 240/83 ADBHU [1985] ECR 531; see also de Vries (2006), pp. 125–130.

  20. 20.

    OJ 2009 C 257/1.

  21. 21.

    See Szyszczak (2004), pp. 982–1011 at p. 991.

  22. 22.

    OJ 2005 L 312/67; OJ 2005 C 297/4.

  23. 23.

    For example, Szyszczak (2004), at p. 992; but the consequences may have been mitigated as a result of the Court’s judgment in CELF (ECJ, Case C-199/06 Centre d’esportation du livre français (CELF) [2008] ECR I-469), see below Sect. 12.4.3.

  24. 24.

    SEC(2007) 1516 final.

  25. 25.

    See also, for example, van de Gronden (2009), at p. 21.

  26. 26.

    See, for example, van de Gronden (2009), at p. 12; also Lavrijssen and de Vries (2009), p. 397.

  27. 27.

    See Prechal et al. (2010).

  28. 28.

    See in this regard: Ross (2009), pp. 125–140, at p. 134. Ross argues that ‘this observation makes the CFI’s previous endorsement of a wide discretion for Member States sound somewhat hollow and opens up the possibility that, after all, the concept of SGEI indeed has a EU-community core.’

  29. 29.

    SEC(2007) 1516 final, p. 22.

  30. 30.

    GC, Joined Cases T-309/04, T-317/04, T-329/04 and T-336/04 TV2 Danmark [2008] ECR II-2935.

  31. 31.

    OJ 1999 C 30/1.

  32. 32.

    COM(2005) 107 final.

  33. 33.

    See Common Position Paper (Draft 5 August 2008) Main principles for a revision of the broadcasting communication of the European Commission. Available at: http://www.minocw.nl/documenten/44541b_OnlinePDF.pdf; see also the letter of the Minister of Education, Culture and Science on the Broadcasting Communication, to be found on the website of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, http://www.minocw.nl/eumedia/index.html.

  34. 34.

    OJ 1989 L 298/23.

  35. 35.

    On this Directive, see the chapters of Szyszczak, Hervey and Pennings in this book.

  36. 36.

    COM(2008) 414 final. See, for example, van de Gronden (2009), at pp. 21–22.

  37. 37.

    COM(2005) 107 final, p. 10.

  38. 38.

    State aid E 3/2005—Financing of public service broadcasters in Germany, C(2007) 1761 final, para 230.

  39. 39.

    See also, for example, Lavrijssen and de Vries (2009), at p. 416.

  40. 40.

    See Press Release, IP/10/52, 26 January 2010.

  41. 41.

    For example, ECJ, Case C-475/99 Ambulanz Glöckner [2001] ECR I-8089; ECJ, Joined Cases C-264/01, C-306/01, C-453/01 and C-355/01 AOK [2004] ECR I-2493; ECJ, Case T-319/99 FENIN [2003] ECR II-357. Belhaj and van de Gronden (2004), pp. 682–687.

  42. 42.

    See, for example, ECJ, Case C-158/96 Kohll [1998] ECR I-1931; ECJ, Case C-120/65 Decker [1998] ECR 1831; ECJ, Case C-157/99 Smits en Peerbooms [2001] ECR I-5473 and ECJ, Case C-372/04 Watts [2006] ECR I-4325.

  43. 43.

    See, for example, van de Gronden (2009), at p. 14.

  44. 44.

    See also, for example, Lavrijssen and de Vries (2009), at p. 395.

  45. 45.

    Europese Commissie, Steunmaatregelen nr. N 541/2004 en N 542/2004 Nederland.

  46. 46.

    For example, Vedder (2008), at p. 25.

  47. 47.

    For example, Sauter (2009), at p. 282.

  48. 48.

    Ibid.

  49. 49.

    For example, Vedder (2008), at p. 26.

  50. 50.

    For example, Sauter (2009), at p. 283.

  51. 51.

    See, for example, van de Gronden (2009), at p. 18.

  52. 52.

    Cf., Vedder (2008), at p. 26.

  53. 53.

    Cf., Ross (2009), at p. 140.

  54. 54.

    See also Joerges (2009), pp. 41–42.

  55. 55.

    See also para 163 of BUPA.

  56. 56.

    OJ 2006, C 156/1.

  57. 57.

    Cf., van de Gronden (2009), at pp. 6–7.

  58. 58.

    Cf., Prechal (2009), p. 68. See also Prosser (2005), p. 173.

  59. 59.

    Chalmers and Monti (2008), p. 69.

  60. 60.

    Cf., Chalmers and Monti (2008), at p. 65.

  61. 61.

    Cf., Chalmers and Monti (2008), at p. 69.

  62. 62.

    Cf., Prechal (2009), at p. 67.

  63. 63.

    Ross (2000), pp. 22–38.

  64. 64.

    Cf., Ross (2000), at p. 38.

  65. 65.

    Cf., Prechal (2009), at p. 68.

  66. 66.

    See also Amtenbrink and van de Gronden (2008), p. 325.

  67. 67.

    See also Neergaard (2009b), p. 204.

  68. 68.

    Krajewski (2008), pp. 392–393.

  69. 69.

    To be found at: http://www.socialistgroup.org/gpes/media3/documents/1917_EN_public_services_en_november_2006_OnlinePDF.pdf

  70. 70.

    Rodrigues (2009), pp. 261–262.

  71. 71.

    See de Vries (2009), p. 151. See with regard to the possibilities to legislate on the basis of Article 106(3) TFEU, Krajewski (2008), at p. 393 and Sauter (2008), pp. 167–193 at p. 172.

  72. 72.

    Cf., Sauter (2008), at p. 173.

  73. 73.

    Amtenbrink and van de Gronden (2008), at p 326.

  74. 74.

    Cf., Prechal (2009), at p. 68.

  75. 75.

    See also, for example, Neergaard (2009b), at p. 203.

  76. 76.

    Cf., Ross (2009), at p. 140.

  77. 77.

    For example, Neergaard (2009a, b) at p. 48 and pp. 203–204, respectively.

  78. 78.

    Cf., Amtenbrink and van de Gronden (2008), at p. 327.

  79. 79.

    Cf., Joerges (2009), at p. 30.

  80. 80.

    Cf., de Vries (2006), at p. 22.

  81. 81.

    Cf., Vedder (2008), at p. 25.

  82. 82.

    Cf., Prechal (2009), at p. 66; see also, for example, Ross (2000).

  83. 83.

    For example, de Vries (2006), at p. 373; a comparison could be made with the application of the free movement rules and public interest exception, whereby the Court is advised to take account of the (inherently substantive) differences between horizontal and flanking policies.

  84. 84.

    For example, Ross (2009), at p.140.

  85. 85.

    For example, van de Gronden (2009), at p. 19; see also, for example, Sauter (2009), at p. 286, who argues that the main problem of BUPA is that competition is ignored: ‘[…] especially when the distinction between the public and private spheres blurs (…) the process of competition should be protected.’

  86. 86.

    ECJ, Case C-199/06 Centre d’exportation du livre français (CELF) [2008] ECR I-469.

  87. 87.

    ECJ, Case T-442/03 SIC II [2008] ECR II-1161; see, for example, Vedder (2008), at p. 24.

  88. 88.

    Case T-222/04 Italy v. Commission, Judgment of 11 June 2009, ECR I-0000 (n.y.r.); see, for example, van de Gronden (2009), at p. 19.

  89. 89.

    For example, de Vries (2009), at pp. 139–158.

  90. 90.

    Hatzopoulos (2009).

References

  • Amtenbrink F, van de Gronden JW (2008) Economisch recht en het Verdrag van Lissabon I: mededinging en interne markt (Economic law and the Treaty of Lisbon I: competition and the internal market), 9 SEW

    Google Scholar 

  • Belhaj S, van de Gronden JW (2004). Some room for competition does not make a sickness fund an undertaking. Is EC competition law applicable to the health care sector? (Joined cases C-264/01, C-306/01, C-453/01 and C-355/01, AOK), ECLR

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers D, Monti G (2008) European union law—updating supplement. CUP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vries S (2006) Tensions within the internal market—the functioning of the internal market and the development of horizontal and flanking policies. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vries S (2009) Harmonization of services of general economic interest: Where There’s a Will There’s a Way!. In: Van de Gronden JW (ed) EU and WTO law on services, limits to the realization of general interest policies within the services markets? Kluwer Law International, Alphen a/d Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatzopoulos V (2009) Services of general interest in healthcare: an exercise in deconstruction? In: Neergaard U, Nielsen R, Roseberry LM (eds) Integrating welfare functions into EU law—from Rome to Lisbon. DJØF Publishing, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Joerges C (2009) A renaissance of the European economic constitution. In: Neergaard U, Nielsen R, Roseberry L (eds) Integrating welfare functions into eu law—from Rome to Lisbon. DJØF Publishing, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski M (2008) Providing legal clarity and securing policy space for public services through a legal framework for services of general economic interest: squaring the circle. 14 European Public Law

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavrijssen S, de Vries S (2009) Chapter 19, Netherlands. In: Krajewski M, Neergaard U, van de Gronden JW (eds) The changing legal framework for services of general economic interest—between competition and solidarity. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Neergaard U (2009a) Services of general economic interest: the nature of the beast. In: Krajewski M, Neergaard U, van de Gronden JW (eds) The changing legal framework for services of general interest in Europe. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Neergaard U (2009b) Services of general (economic) interest: what aims and values count? In: Neergaard U, Nielsen R, Roseberry LM (eds) Integrating welfare functions into EU law—from Rome to Lisbon. DJØF Publishing, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Prechal S (2009) Fundamental rights and the liberalization of services markets. In: van de Gronden JW (ed) EU and WTO law on services—limits to the realization of general interest policies within the services markets. Kluwer Law International, Alphen a/d Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Prechal S et al (2010) The principle of attributed powers and the ‘scope of EU law’. In: Prechal S, Widderhovenen R, Besselink L (eds) European monographs. Kluwer Law International, Alphen a/d Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosser T (2005) The limits of competition law—markets and public services. OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues S (2009) Towards a general EC framework instrument related to SGEI? Political considerations and legal constraints. In: Krajewski M, Neergaard U, van de Gronden JW (eds) The changing legal framework for services of general interest in Europe—between competition and solidarity. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross M (2000) Article 16 E.C. and services of general interest: from derogation to obligation? 25 ELRev

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross M (2009) A healthy approach to services of general economic interest? The BUPA judgment of the Court of First Instance. 34 ELRev

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauter W (2008) Services of general economic interest and universal service in EU law. 33 ELRev

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauter W (2009) Case note on case T-289/03, British United Provident Association Ltd (BUPA), BUPA Insurance Ltd, BUPA Ireland Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities, Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 February 2008, nyr’. 46 CMLRev

    Google Scholar 

  • Szyszczak E (2004) Financing services of general economic interest. 67 MLR

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Gronden JW (2009). Financing healthcare in EU law: do the European state aid rules write out an effective prescription for integrating competition law with healthcare? 6 CompLRev

    Google Scholar 

  • Vedder H (2008) The constitutionality of competition—EC internal market law and the fine line between markets, public interests and (self-)regulation in a changing constitutional setting. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1282035

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Wies Smit and Marloes Ramp for their assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Law at the Europa Institute of Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Sybe A. de Vries

Authors
  1. Sybe A. de Vries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sybe A. de Vries .

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

de Vries, S.A. (2011). BUPA; A Healthy Case, in the Light of a Changing Constitutional Setting in Europe?. 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_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation