Brussels, 12/07/2007 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday, the Commission took measures to remove the obstacles to the free provision of services in Germany, Austria, Spain and the United Kingdom.
Germany. The Commission has decided to refer Germany to the European Court of Justice regarding application of a bilateral agreement between Germany and Poland in the building sector. The Commission considers the agreement is discriminatory towards companies established in other member states. According to the interpretation of the German authorities, only German companies can use the possibility provided by the above-mentioned agreement to call on Polish subcontractors, who may thus, within the limits of a quota regime, post their workers to Germany. Companies established in other member states that hope to carry out construction work in Germany cannot enjoy the advantages of this agreement and cannot therefore call on Polish subcontractors.
Austria. The Commission has decided to refer Austria to the Court of Justice regarding the restrictions that Austria imposes on the free provision of services by patent agents. The Commission considers it is disproportionate to oblige all patent agents legally established in another member state to enter themselves in the Austrian register, hold insurance for this purpose, and be subject to all Austrian disciplinary rules.
United Kingdom/Spain. The Commission has decided to send a reasoned opinion (second step in infringement procedure in accordance with Article 226 of the EC Treaty) to Spain and the United Kingdom with regard to the rules for reimbursing costs incurred by urgent hospital care in another member state. If no satisfactory response is received within two months, the Commission may refer the matter to the Court. In the Vanbraeckel ruling (Case C-368/98, 12.07.01), the Court ruled on the question of reimbursement of hospital treatment in the case of a patient authorised to undergo such treatment in another member state. The Court considered that, in application of the principle of freedom to provide services, the reimbursement should have been at least identical to that which the patient would have been granted if hospitalised in the member state of affiliation. The Court pointed out that this could lead to payment of an additional reimbursement where the rate of reimbursement in the patient's member state of affiliation was more advantageous than that of the member states where the hospital treatment was given. The Commission considers that this should apply equally well in a case where a tourist or anyone else temporarily resident in another member state is in need of urgent hospital care. For further information on infringement proceedings: http: //ec.europa.eu/community_law/eulaw/idnex_en.htm (hb)