OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL

delivered on 15 October 2002 (1)

Vasilios Ioannidis

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikiti Protodikio Thessalonikis (Greece))

((Refund of expenditure relating to hospital treatment for a pensioner in another Member State – Conditions – Social security – Articles 22, 31 and 36 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Freedom to provide services – Articles 46 EC, 49 EC and 50 EC – Fundamental rights – Right to own property))

I ─ The facts in the main proceedings

II ─ The questions referred for a preliminary ruling

10. In order to settle the dispute, the national court asks the Court of Justice:

(1) whether Article 3a(4)(g) of the Hospital Care Regulations of the IKA, ..., to the extent that it laid down as an additional requirement, before the IKA may in very exceptional cases ─ namely in cases where a particular illness of the pensioner of the IKA seeking their refund manifested itself suddenly while he was temporarily staying abroad or he was transferred there urgently in order to avert a real risk to his life ─ refund the costs of treatment which has already taken place in hospital abroad, that the director of the competent regional branch of the IKA must grant the related authorisation after an opinion has been given by the IKA's Medical Committee of Appeal, is consistent with the provisions ... of Articles 31 and 36 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 ... and Articles 31 and 93 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 ... since, even if it were accepted that those provisions in principle confer on the Member States discretion ─ in respect of benefits including sickness benefits in kind to pensioners temporarily staying in the territory of a Member State other than the one in which they reside, which benefits must be considered also to comprise the provision of hospital treatment ─ to enact provisions establishing as an additional condition for the refund of the costs relating to the benefits the, albeit ex post facto, authorisation of those costs, it is in any event not entirely clear and free from doubt whether they additionally allow the Member States to enact provisions establishing as a necessary condition for the grant of such authorisation that requirements be met similar to those laid down in the aforementioned provision of the IKA Regulations ..., that is to say requirements which are related to the immediate need for provision of hospital treatment;

(2) whether, on the basis that services comprising the provision of care within hospitals constitute services within the meaning of Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC), the aforementioned provision of the IKA Regulations, even if it were considered, to the extent referred to above, not to be contrary to the above provisions of the Council Regulations, is consistent to that extent with Articles 59 (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) and 60 of the EC Treaty;

(3) if Question 2 is answered in the negative, whether the rule laid down by that provision of the IKA Regulations is justified on grounds of public health which are related to the provision of a balanced hospital service accessible to everybody resident within Greece and therefore falls within the exceptions in Article 56 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 46 EC);

(4) whether, on the basis that entitlement to sickness benefits in kind and, by extension, the claim for refund of the costs relating to them constitute possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of the Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Paris on 20 March 1952, the aforementioned provision of the IKA Regulations ─ even if it were considered that ... it is not contrary to the aforementioned provisions of the ... Regulations and of the EC Treaty, or, that is to say ..., that it is justified in accordance with the matters previously set out ─ is consistent ... with the first paragraph of Article 1 of the Protocol; and

(5) if Question 4 is answered in the negative, whether the rule laid down by the aforementioned provision of the IKA Regulations is justified on grounds of public interest which are connected with preservation of the financial stability of the social security system and therefore falls within the exceptions in the second paragraph of Article 1 of that Protocol.

III ─ National legislation

11. Decision 416/1993 of the Minister for Social Security (9) of 31 July 1984, which was adopted pursuant to Article 16 of Law 1846/1951, (10) added Article 3a to the IKA Hospital Care Regulations. (11) Article 3a(1)(a) establishes that, if it is not possible for the illness to be diagnosed in Greece or for the person insured with the IKA to be treated in hospital in Greece, because of a lack either of doctors with the required specialty or of suitable scientific means, the IKA is to pay all the costs incurred abroad. It also pays the transfer costs of the patient and a companion, paying a daily fixed subsistence allowance calculated according to the country to which he is going. As a general rule, hospital treatment abroad requires prior authorisation. Nevertheless, an exception is recognised by Article 3a(4)(g) (12) which provides that, in very exceptional cases, the director of the competent regional branch may authorise hospital treatment which has already taken place abroad either because the illness manifested itself suddenly while the patient was staying in another country or because he had to be transferred there urgently in order to avert a real risk to his life. That provision became applicable on 23 August 1984.

12. Decision F. 7/oik.15 of the State Secretary for Labour and Social Security of 7 January 1997, (13) adopted pursuant to Article 40(4) of Law 1316/1983, (14) laid down in a uniform manner the conditions for the provision of hospital treatment abroad, and the procedure for its authorisation, for persons insured with all the sickness institutions and branches within the competence of the General Secretariat for Social Security, which include the IKA. From 20 January 1997, Article 3a(4)(g) ceased to apply, and it covered thereafter only the cases of persons insured with and pensioners of the IKA (15) who had received hospital treatment abroad between 23 August 1984 and 19 January 1997. (16)

IV ─ The proceedings before the Court of Justice

13. Written observations have been submitted in these proceedings, within the period laid down by Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, by the IKA, the Belgian, Greek, Spanish, Irish, Austrian and United Kingdom Governments and the Commission. At the hearing held on 10 September 2002, the IKA's representative, the agents of Greece, Spain, Ireland, Netherlands, Finland, the United Kingdom and the Commission presented oral argument.

V ─ Consideration of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

A ─ The first question

16. The Greek Government maintains, as does the IKA, that the facts are not governed by Articles 31 and 36 of Regulation No 1408/71, but are covered by Article 22(1)(c) and (2). The German institution asked the IKA for Form E 112, even though the insured had Form E 111, because it did not accept that the treatment given was either necessary or urgent, which confirms, in its opinion, that the pensioner went to Germany for medical reasons. The Spanish Government takes the same view.

17. The Irish Government proposes that the question be reworded, because it considers that the facts fall within the scope of Articles 22, 22a and 31 of Regulation No 1408/71. In that case, there is entitlement to receive medical treatment without any authorisation, and it is the national court which has to assess whether it was essential for the insured to receive the treatment described. If the question is not reworded, the Irish Government suggests that a reply be given to the national court to the effect that the Community legislation referred to does not preclude the contested Greek provision.

18. The Netherlands Government points out that, in accordance with the principle of equality of treatment, all persons who fall within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71 are to be entitled to social security benefits on the same terms and to the same extent. It adds that Articles 22 and 22a govern all the possible situations of health care for the insured, including retired persons, when they have to receive medical care in another Member State.

19. The Austrian Government considers that, for the purposes of Regulation No 1408/71, pensioners are treated in the same way as workers and, if they are staying temporarily in a Member State in which they are not resident, Article 22(1)(a) is applicable to them by analogy, with the result that they will be entitled only to those benefits which are needed immediately. It considers that Article 22(1)(a) is contrary to a provision such as that contained in Article 3a(4)(g) of the IKA's Hospital Care Regulations, which imposes the obligation to obtain an authorisation always, and not only in the situations laid down in Paragraph 1(c).

21. The United Kingdom Government points out that Articles 31 and 22(1)(c) of Regulation No 1408/71 govern different situations. If the national court decides that Mr Ioannidis's condition worsened while he was in Germany and that he needed to be admitted to hospital, it should apply Article 31, and the IKA should bear the costs. If, on the other hand, it is persuaded that there was no such sudden deterioration, it should settle the dispute in accordance with Article 22(1)(c), in which case the IKA is free from that obligation. The United Kingdom Government maintains that the contested Greek provision is compatible with Articles 31 and 36 of Regulation No 1408/71 and with Articles 31 and 93 of Regulation No 574/72, but not with Article 22(1)(c) and (2) of Regulation No 1408/71.

22. The Commission draws a distinction between treatment required abroad immediately, provided for in Article 22(1)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, given to those in possession of Form E 111; planned hospital treatment, governed by Article 22(1)(c) and (2), second subparagraph, which is provided if there is prior authorisation by means of Form E 112; and treatment needed abroad by pensioners, which is covered by Article 31, and given to the bearers of Form E 111.

23. It is curious to note the profound differences between those who have submitted observations in these proceedings, not only with regard to the reply they propose but also ─ and this is what is surprising ─ in respect of the scope they accord to the same provisions of Regulation No 1408/71, which should be uniformly applicable throughout the Community. These disparities do not fail to emerge every time the social security institutions of the various Member States are confronted with financing health care provided in another Member State, as has been pointed out in a few cases decided by the Court of Justice in recent years: either because in some States the health insurance grants benefits in kind and in others it refunds part of the cost borne by the insured, or because the specific experience of social security organisations require them to adopt a well-defined approach.

24. In the present case, the preliminary discussion focuses on determining whether the provision whose interpretation is relevant to the settlement of the dispute is Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71, to which the national court refers, or Article 22, as suggested by the IKA and most of the Member States appearing. Although the Court of Justice has already had several opportunities to examine Article 22, it has only given one ruling on Article 31, and that was indirectly.

25. From the time of the judgments in the Pierik cases, both the application ratione personae and the scope of Articles 22 and 31 of Regulation No 1408/71 should have been clear. However, to judge by the differences revealed by the social security institutions of the Member States, that assessment is over-optimistic. I therefore agree with the Commission that it is necessary to study the disparity between the rules applicable to active workers and pensioners, when both need medical care during a stay in a Member State in which they do not reside, and also the concordance of those rules when they go to another Member State in order to obtain planned health benefits.

27. The first situation is provided for in Article 22(1)(a), according to which a worker who satisfies the conditions of the legislation of the competent State for entitlement to benefits, and who requires immediate treatment during a stay in the territory of another Member State, is to be entitled to benefits in kind provided on behalf of the competent institution by the institution of the place of stay or residence, as though he were insured with it. As we can see, the rule requires the need for benefits to be immediate.

28. The third situation is covered by Article 22(1)(c)(i) and the second subparagraph of Article 22(2). Under those provisions, a worker who is authorised by the competent institution to go to the territory of another Member State to receive there the treatment appropriate to his ailment, is entitled to benefits in kind provided on behalf of the competent institution by the institution of the place of stay, as though he were insured with it. The authorisation may not be refused where provision is not made for the treatment in question by the legislation of the Member State in which he resides, or where, owing to his present state of health and the probable development of the illness, the treatment cannot be given to him within the period usually required for obtaining treatment in the Member State in which he resides. Here the emphasis is placed on the person concerned obtaining the authorisation of the competent institution before he leaves, although the Court has acknowledged that, where a request made by an insured person on the basis of Article 22(1)(c) has been refused by the competent institution and it is subsequently established, either by the competent institution itself or by a court decision, that that refusal was unfounded, that person is entitled to be reimbursed directly by the competent institution by an amount equivalent to that which it would have borne if authorisation had been properly granted in the first place.

29. In Pierik II, the Court defined the personal scope of Article 22(1)(c) of Regulation No 1408/71. It was a matter of ascertaining whether that provision, which confers entitlement to benefits in kind on a worker, also covers a pensioner, who is not, or is no longer, at work, and who asks the competent institution for authorisation to go to a Member State other than the one in which he resides to receive there the treatment appropriate to his state of health.

30. In the judgment it is then observed that Articles 27 to 33 are in Title II, Chapter 1, Section 5, concerning pensioners and members of their families, and that they apply exclusively to those categories of insured, from which two consequences are drawn: first, that Article 31 confers on pensioners entitlement to benefits in kind where those benefits become necessary during a stay in a Member State other that the one in which they reside; second, that Article 22(1)(c), in Chapter 1, Section 2, governs the entitlement to benefits in kind of an insured person residing in a Member State who asks the competent institution for authorisation to go to the territory of another Member State to receive there the treatment appropriate to his condition.

33. I should add that, if the Community legislature had wished pensioners to be treated in the same way as other insured persons, when receiving medical care during a stay in a Member State other than the one in which they reside, it would not have laid down provisions such as Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71 and Article 31 of Regulation No 574/72, which apply only to pensioners, and would have acted as it did in respect of planned transfers, which are governed, for all insured persons, by Article 22(1)(c) of Regulation No 1408/71.

34. As we all know, in preliminary ruling proceedings, which are based on a clear separation of functions between the national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the national court to establish the facts which gave rise to the dispute and to draw from them the appropriate conclusions for the decision it has to give. As a result, the Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to rule on the facts in the main proceedings or to apply the rules of Community law which it has interpreted to national measures or situations, since those questions are matters for the exclusive jurisdiction of the national court.

35. In the light of the description of the facts given in the order for reference, and bearing in mind the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 in respect of pensioners, on the one hand, and all other insured persons, on the other, the national court has correctly identified the problem when it asks the Court of Justice to interpret Article 31. It is therefore not appropriate to reword the first question referred for a preliminary ruling in order to give it the meaning that what the national court needs, in fact, to resolve the main dispute, is the interpretation of Article 22(1)(c), as the IKA and a good number of the Member States claim.

36. The eagerness to resort to Article 22(1)(c) is apparently motivated by the attitude of the German institution, which did not accept Form E 111. That refusal has compelled the party concerned to take a very long series of measures, including an action in Greece and interlocutory proceedings in Luxembourg, in order to clarify who should bear the cost of a benefit which, as the beneficiary of sickness insurance in a Member State, he was in all probability entitled to receive free.

37. The order for reference does not state the reasons which have led the German institution to reject the Form E 111 issued by the Greek institution and request that it forward Form E 112 instead.

This conduct surprises me for several reasons: first, because Article 31 of Regulation No 574/72 only requires the insured to present a certificate to the institution of the place of stay confirming his entitlement to the benefits; second, because the specific function of Form E 111 is to confirm entitlement to sickness benefits in kind; and third, because, according to the provisions of Article 93(1) of Regulation No 574/72, the actual amount of benefits in kind provided under Articles 22 and 31 of Regulation No 1408/71 is to be refunded by the competent institution to the institution which provided them, as shown in the accounts of that institution. So the German institution would have received the same amount from the Greek institution, irrespective of whether the hospital care was provided under Form E 111, as the insured must have claimed, or E 112, as the German institution wished.

The Commission rightly points out that it is incumbent on every social security institution of a Member State to acknowledge the validity of the certificates issued in the other States, the aim of which is to ensure the uniform and consistent application of Regulation No 1408/71, which coordinates the national social security schemes. That duty to cooperate in good faith is laid down in general terms in Article 10 EC and, in respect of cooperation between social security institutions, in Article 84 of Regulation No 1408/71.

During recent years the Court of Justice has been faced for the first time with questions referred for a preliminary ruling in which it was asked about the consequences in a Member State of the forms issued by the social security institutions of other Member States, in implementation of Regulations No 1408/71 and No 574/72. It has construed Form E 101, which confirms the legislation applicable in the event of the temporary posting of workers, issued by the competent authority of a Member State, as being binding on the social security institutions of other Member States in so far as it certifies that workers posted by an undertaking providing temporary personnel are covered by the social security system of the Member State in which that undertaking is established.

It added that the competent institution which issued the Form E 101 must reconsider the grounds for its issue and, if necessary, withdraw the certificate if the competent institution of the State to which the workers are posted expresses doubts as to the correctness of the facts on which the certificate is based and, consequently, of the information it contains.

In my view, since Form E 111 confirms entitlement to sickness benefits in kind during a stay in a Member State in which the insured does not reside, it should be accorded the same binding nature and evidential value, with respect to the social security institutions of the other Member States, as the Court has accorded to Form E 101, which confirms the affiliation of a transferred worker to the social security scheme of the Member State in which the company is established. If the institution of the place of stay finds that, in fact, the insured has gone there with the intention of receiving medical attention, in application of the principle of cooperation in good faith, laid down in Article 10 EC and Article 84 of Regulation No 1408/71, it must pass on that information to the institution of the State of residence, which may cancel the validity of Form E 111 for the period during which the planned benefits were received.

If the institution of the place of stay were able to refuse at will the validity of Certificate E 111 issued by the institution of the State of residence, as the German institution seems to have done, that would leave without medical cover a person who, in good faith, has believed that, because he was carrying it, he was entitled to sickness benefits in kind while he was in another Member State, and the free movement of persons within the Community would be seriously obstructed.

It seems clear to me that, behind the observations of the IKA and the various governments appearing in this case, lies a concern to prevent a request for benefits in kind made by a pensioner staying in a Member State, under cover of Form E 111, from concealing a movement to another country with the aim of receiving medical treatment, by circumventing the procedure established, for all insured persons, in Article 22(1)(c), which includes the authorisation by the competent institution by means of Form E 112. However, that concern cannot justify evading application of the rule laid down by the legislature for the specific case or applying a rule, by analogy, to a situation which it is not designed to govern. If the authorities of the Member State of residence suspect that the movement of the party concerned under cover of form E 111 has been motivated by the intention to receive medical treatment, they must evaluate, before taking a decision, not only the attitude adopted by the institution of the Member State of stay but also the documents from other sources, like, for example, the certificates issued by the hospital or by the doctors who have attended the patient. They may also consider evidence such as: checking whether the person concerned was on a long waiting-list for the treatment carried out in another Member State, or verifying whether he had recently requested, and been refused, authorisation for the movement from the competent institution; this is evidence which, while not conclusive, may, when taken together with other factors, help the authorities to reach a decision.

It is established in the main proceedings that the patient, a pensioner, has a heart condition and needed to be admitted to hospital while he was on a visit to Germany. The file also contains a certificate issued by the Director of the Centre and the report of the doctor who attended the patient, according to which he was admitted to hospital as a matter of urgency, owing to repeated chest pains caused by angina. It is also established that he had a valid Certificate E 111. Under Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71, he was therefore entitled to receive sickness benefits in kind, while he was in Germany, provided by the institution of that State, in accordance with its legislation, and at the expense of the Greek institution.

When a pensioner goes temporarily to a Member State in which he does not reside and needs medical care, the institution of the place of stay must apply Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71, without imposing any additional condition or assessing whether the need for care is immediate, a requirement laid down only by Article 22(1)(a) for all other insured persons. Nor may the institution of the country of residence impose the requirement of authorisation ex post facto, as allowed under Article 3a(4)(g) of the IKA Hospital Care Regulations.

That provision seems to be designed to enable the Greek social security institution to control the way in which Article 22(1)(a) has been applied abroad, on the one hand, and to assess, on the other, whether it is appropriate, when the movement has been made urgently, to grant the authorisation provided for in Article 22(1)(c), once the medical care has been given. In the latter case, the prerequisite for authorising payment of the benefits is that the movement has been made urgently in order to avert any real risk to the patient's life. I note, however, that that requirement is even more restrictive than Article 22(1)(c) of Regulation No 1408/71, which only requires, for authorisation of the transfer and, if appropriate, the subsequent refund, the fact that, in view of the state of the patient's health and the likely development of his illness, the care cannot be provided within the period normally necessary for obtaining treatment in the State of residence.

Accordingly, the costs of Mr Ioannidis's hospital treatment in Germany must be borne by the institution of the State of residence, if the conditions laid down by Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71, namely that a pensioner has stayed in a Member State in which he does not reside and that he has needed medical care, are met.

It is not recorded in the file whether the German sickness fund paid the cost of the hospital treatment or if the party concerned paid them directly, since the national court only states in its order that the Greek institution was asked to forward Form E 112.

The first situation requires application of Article 36 of Regulation No 1408/71 and Article 93 of Regulation No 574/72, which govern the procedures for reimbursement of the sickness or maternity benefits in kind provided by the institution of one Member State on behalf of the institution of another Member State. Reimbursement between institutions is made in accordance with the costs reflected in the accounts of the institution which has provided the benefits, if the insured was entitled to receive them.

In the second situation, resort must be had to Article 34 of Regulation No 574/72, under which, if the formalities provided for in Article 31 have not been completed during the stay, and the patient has paid the medical costs, he will be reimbursed by the competent institution according to the rates of the institution of the place of stay.

The condition for application of Article 34 of Regulation No 574/72 is that it has not been possible to complete the formalities laid down, in so far as is of concern here, by Article 31 of that regulation. That formality consists in presenting a certificate confirming entitlement to the benefits, stating the maximum period for which these are granted in the State of residence. Failure to comply with that obligation may be due to the fact that the insured did not have Form E 111, that the institution of the place of stay has not requested it from the country of residence, or that it has not been forwarded to it in time.

There is no record of an agreement between the German institution and the Greek institution waiving any reimbursement or a fixed reimbursement of the benefits provided under Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71. If there were, the former institution would have to transfer to the latter the sum which has to be refunded to the person concerned who has paid the cost of the benefit.

Article 34(4) of Regulation No 574/72 provides an exception to the rule. It allows the competent institution to pay the expenses incurred in accordance with the rates it administers provided that it is possible to make a refund in accordance with those rates, that the expenses to be refunded do not exceed the amount determined by the Administrative Commission and that the person concerned agrees to the application of this provision. It is for the competent institution to initiate application of that procedure. However, under no circumstances is the amount of reimbursement to exceed the amount of the expenses actually incurred. If the legislation of the State of residence has not provided for rates of reimbursement, the competent institution may effect the reimbursement without the agreement of the person concerned being necessary.

The refusal by the institution of the place of stay to accept the Form E 111 submitted by a pensioner who resides in another Member State is not considered by Article 34 of Regulation No 574/72 to be a circumstance giving rise to reimbursement by the institution of the State of residence to the insured of the costs he has borne. In my view, however, if the refusal to accept Form E 111 is unjustified, the consequences must be the same as those established in that rule, so that the pensioner is never adversely affected.

It should therefore be stated that Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71 and Article 31 of Regulation No 574/72 preclude national legislation which requires, as an additional requirement, before the social security institution refunds the costs of treatment which has already taken place in hospital abroad, a special authorisation which is granted on condition that the illness of the insured, who is a pensioner, has manifested itself suddenly during a stay abroad and that medical care has been required immediately.

The other questions referred for a preliminary ruling

The national court raised the remaining questions in case the Court of Justice were to hold that the rules of Regulation No 1408/71 and Regulation No 574/72 are not incompatible with the national provision at issue, which is the subject-matter of the first question. Since the reply I propose is in the affirmative, there is no need to go on to examine the other questions.

In the light of the foregoing arguments, I suggest that the Court reply to the questions referred to it for a preliminary ruling by the Dioikiti Protodikeio Thessalonikis by declaring that: Article 31 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, and Article 31 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, preclude national legislation which requires, as an additional requirement, before the social security institution refunds the costs of treatment which has already taken place in hospital abroad, a special authorisation which is granted on condition that the illness of the insured, who is a pensioner, has manifested itself suddenly during a stay abroad and that medical care has been required immediately.

1 – Original language: Spanish.

2 – Administrative Court of First Instance, Thessaloniki.

3 – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 II, p. 416), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995 (OJ 1995 L 335, p. 10).

4 – Regulation (EEC) of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 I, p. 159) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995 (OJ 1995 L 335, p. 10).

5 – The application of Regulation No 1408/71 and Regulation No 574/72 has required the approval, by the Administrative Committee of the European Communities on Social Security for Migrant Workers, established by Article 80 of Regulation No 1408/71, of various model forms, drawn up in all the official languages, which are generally used as certificates. Those mentioned in this case were approved by Decision No 153 (94/604/EC) of 7 October 1993 on the model forms necessary for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72 (E 001, E 103 to E 127) (O J 1994 L 244, p. 22).

6 – Regulation (EEC) of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 I, p. 159) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995 (OJ 1995 L 335, p. 10).

7 – The application of Regulation No 1408/71 and Regulation No 574/72 has required the approval, by the Administrative Committee of the European Communities on Social Security for Migrant Workers, established by Article 80 of Regulation No 1408/71, of various model forms, drawn up in all the official languages, which are generally used as certificates. Those mentioned in this case were approved by Decision No 153 (94/604/EC) of 7 October 1993 on the model forms necessary for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72 (E 001, E 103 to E 127) (O J 1994 L 244, p. 22).

8 – Regulation (EEC) of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 I, p. 159) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995 (OJ 1995 L 335, p. 10).

9 – The application of Regulation No 1408/71 and Regulation No 574/72 has required the approval, by the Administrative Committee of the European Communities on Social Security for Migrant Workers, established by Article 80 of Regulation No 1408/71, of various model forms, drawn up in all the official languages, which are generally used as certificates. Those mentioned in this case were approved by Decision No 153 (94/604/EC) of 7 October 1993 on the model forms necessary for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72 (E 001, E 103 to E 127) (O J 1994 L 244, p. 22).

10 – Regulation (EEC) of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 I, p. 159) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995 (OJ 1995 L 335, p. 10).

11 – The application of Regulation No 1408/71 and Regulation No 574/72 has required the approval, by the Administrative Committee of the European Communities on Social Security for Migrant Workers, established by Article 80 of Regulation No 1408/71, of various model forms, drawn up in all the official languages, which are generally used as certificates. Those mentioned in this case were approved by Decision No 153 (94/604/EC) of 7 October 1993 on the model forms necessary for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72 (E 001, E 103 to E 127) (O J 1994 L 244, p. 22).

12 – Regulation (EEC) of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 I, p. 159) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995 (OJ 1995 L 335, p. 10).

13 – The application of Regulation No 1408/71 and Regulation No 574/72 has required the approval, by the Administrative Committee of the European Communities on Social Security for Migrant Workers, established by Article 80 of Regulation No 1408/71, of various model forms, drawn up in all the official languages, which are generally used as certificates. Those mentioned in this case were approved by Decision No 153 (94/604/EC) of 7 October 1993 on the model forms necessary for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72 (E 001, E 103 to E 127) (O J 1994 L 244, p. 22).

14 – Regulation (EEC) of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 I, p. 159) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995 (OJ 1995 L 335, p. 10).

15 – The application of Regulation No 1408/71 and Regulation No 574/72 has required the approval, by the Administrative Committee of the European Communities on Social Security for Migrant Workers, established by Article 80 of Regulation No 1408/71, of various model forms, drawn up in all the official languages, which are generally used as certificates. Those mentioned in this case were approved by Decision No 153 (94/604/EC) of 7 October 1993 on the model forms necessary for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72 (E 001, E 103 to E 127) (O J 1994 L 244, p. 22).

16 – Regulation (EEC) of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 I, p. 159) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995 (OJ 1995 L 335, p. 10).

17 – The application of Regulation No 1408/71 and Regulation No 574/72 has required the approval, by the Administrative Committee of the European Communities on Social Security for Migrant Workers, established by Article 80 of Regulation No 1408/71, of various model forms, drawn up in all the official languages, which are generally used as certificates. Those mentioned in this case were approved by Decision No 153 (94/604/EC) of 7 October 1993 on the model forms necessary for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72 (E 001, E 103 to E 127) (O J 1994 L 244, p. 22).

18 – Regulation (EEC) of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 I, p. 159) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995 (OJ 1995 L 335, p. 10).

19 – The application of Regulation No 1408/71 and Regulation No 574/72 has required the approval, by the Administrative Committee of the European Communities on Social Security for Migrant Workers, established by Article 80 of Regulation No 1408/71, of various model forms, drawn up in all the official languages, which are generally used as certificates. Those mentioned in this case were approved by Decision No 153 (94/604/EC) of 7 October 1993 on the model forms necessary for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72 (E 001, E 103 to E 127) (O J 1994 L 244, p. 22).

20 – Regulation (EEC) of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 I, p. 159) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995 (OJ 1995 L 335, p. 10).

21 – The application of Regulation No 1408/71 and Regulation No 574/72 has required the approval, by the Administrative Committee of the European Communities on Social Security for Migrant Workers, established by Article 80 of Regulation No 1408/71, of various model forms, drawn up in all the official languages, which are generally used as certificates. Those mentioned in this case were approved by Decision No 153 (94/604/EC) of 7 October 1993 on the model forms necessary for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72 (E 001, E 103 to E 127) (O J 1994 L 244, p. 22).

22 – Regulation (EEC) of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 I, p. 159) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995 (OJ 1995 L 335, p. 10).

23 – The application of Regulation No 1408/71 and Regulation No 574/72 has required the approval, by the Administrative Committee of the European Communities on Social Security for Migrant Workers, established by Article 80 of Regulation No 1408/71, of various model forms, drawn up in all the official languages, which are generally used as certificates. Those mentioned in this case were approved by Decision No 153 (94/604/EC) of 7 October 1993 on the model forms necessary for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72 (E 001, E 103 to E 127) (O J 1994 L 244, p. 22).

24 – Regulation (EEC) of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 I, p. 159) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995 (OJ 1995 L 335, p. 10).

25 – The application of Regulation No 1408/71 and Regulation No 574/72 has required the approval, by the Administrative Committee of the European Communities on Social Security for Migrant Workers, established by Article 80 of Regulation No 1408/71, of various model forms, drawn up in all the official languages, which are generally used as certificates. Those mentioned in this case were approved by Decision No 153 (94/604/EC) of 7 October 1993 on the model forms necessary for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72 (E 001, E 103 to E 127) (O J 1994 L 244, p. 22).

26 – Regulation (EEC) of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 I, p. 159) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995 (OJ 1995 L 335, p. 10).

27 – The application of Regulation No 1408/71 and Regulation No 574/72 has required the approval, by the Administrative Committee of the European Communities on Social Security for Migrant Workers, established by Article 80 of Regulation No 1408/71, of various model forms, drawn up in all the official languages, which are generally used as certificates. Those mentioned in this case were approved by Decision No 153 (94/604/EC) of 7 October 1993 on the model forms necessary for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72 (E 001, E 103 to E 127) (O J 1994 L 244, p. 22).

28 – Regulation (EEC) of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 I, p. 159) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995 (OJ 1995 L 335, p. 10).

29 – The application of Regulation No 1408/71 and Regulation No 574/72 has required the approval, by the Administrative Committee of the European Communities on Social Security for Migrant Workers, established by Article 80 of Regulation No 1408/71, of various model forms, drawn up in all the official languages, which are generally used as certificates. Those mentioned in this case were approved by Decision No 153 (94/604/EC) of 7 October 1993 on the model forms necessary for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72 (E 001, E 103 to E 127) (O J 1994 L 244, p. 22).

30 – Regulation (EEC) of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 I, p. 159) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995 (OJ 1995 L 335, p. 10).

31 – The application of Regulation No 1408/71 and Regulation No 574/72 has required the approval, by the Administrative Committee of the European Communities on Social Security for Migrant Workers, established by Article 80 of Regulation No 1408/71, of various model forms, drawn up in all the official languages, which are generally used as certificates. Those mentioned in this case were approved by Decision No 153 (94/604/EC) of 7 October 1993 on the model forms necessary for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72 (E 001, E 103 to E 127) (O J 1994 L 244, p. 22).

32 – Regulation (EEC) of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 I, p. 159) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995 (OJ 1995 L 335, p. 10).

33 – The application of Regulation No 1408/71 and Regulation No 574/72 has required the approval, by the Administrative Committee of the European Communities on Social Security for Migrant Workers, established by Article 80 of Regulation No 1408/71, of various model forms, drawn up in all the official languages, which are generally used as certificates. Those mentioned in this case were approved by Decision No 153 (94/604/EC) of 7 October 1993 on the model forms necessary for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72 (E 001, E 103 to E 127) (O J 1994 L 244, p. 22).

34 – Regulation (EEC) of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 I, p. 159) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995 (OJ 1995 L 335, p. 10).

35 – The application of Regulation No 1408/71 and Regulation No 574/72 has required the approval, by the Administrative Committee of the European Communities on Social Security for Migrant Workers, established by Article 80 of Regulation No 1408/71, of various model forms, drawn up in all the official languages, which are generally used as certificates. Those mentioned in this case were approved by Decision No 153 (94/604/EC) of 7 October 1993 on the model forms necessary for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72 (E 001, E 103 to E 127) (O J 1994 L 244, p. 22).

36 – Regulation (EEC) of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 I, p. 159) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995 (OJ 1995 L 335, p. 10).