The regulation of healthcare in the European Union: member states' discretion or a widening of EU law? Femarbel and Ottica New Line

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

In the context of healthcare, the ECJ's jurisprudence has recently been clarified and codified in Directive 2011/24/EU on patients' rights in cross-border healthcare ("Patients' Mobility Directive"). Two judgments recently issued by the ECJ make interesting reading in this regard. While the facts of Femarbel and Ottica do not bear much resemblance to each other, the judgments illustrate that the definition of what falls under the umbrella of healthcare services is not always obvious. Moreover, the cases provide a timely example of attempts by commercial interest groups to use EU law to open up domestic healthcare markets to private, commercial service providers. As such, the judgments have the potential to provide more clarity on the scope of the Directive 2006/123 on services in the internal market ("the Services Directive") and Member States' discretion in regulating healthcare provision in their territory. Finally, the judgments provide further examples of the ECJ's willingness to adjudicate in cases concerning wholly internal situations.
LanguageEnglish
Pages1521-1538
Number of pages18
JournalCommon Market Law Review
Volume51
Issue number5
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2014

Fingerprint

European Law
regulation
patient's rights
market
jurisprudence
interest group
service provider
EU

Keywords

  • healthcare
  • European Union
  • cross border healthcare

Cite this

@article{a5899bb0d9c448069d6bf0804de765d3,
title = "The regulation of healthcare in the European Union: member states' discretion or a widening of EU law? Femarbel and Ottica New Line",
abstract = "In the context of healthcare, the ECJ's jurisprudence has recently been clarified and codified in Directive 2011/24/EU on patients' rights in cross-border healthcare ({"}Patients' Mobility Directive{"}). Two judgments recently issued by the ECJ make interesting reading in this regard. While the facts of Femarbel and Ottica do not bear much resemblance to each other, the judgments illustrate that the definition of what falls under the umbrella of healthcare services is not always obvious. Moreover, the cases provide a timely example of attempts by commercial interest groups to use EU law to open up domestic healthcare markets to private, commercial service providers. As such, the judgments have the potential to provide more clarity on the scope of the Directive 2006/123 on services in the internal market ({"}the Services Directive{"}) and Member States' discretion in regulating healthcare provision in their territory. Finally, the judgments provide further examples of the ECJ's willingness to adjudicate in cases concerning wholly internal situations.",
keywords = "healthcare, European Union, cross border healthcare",
author = "Rebecca Zahn",
note = "This document is a pre-edited work and has been accepted for publisher in the Common Market Law Review.",
year = "2014",
month = "10",
language = "English",
volume = "51",
pages = "1521--1538",
journal = "Common Market Law Review",
issn = "0165-0750",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The regulation of healthcare in the European Union

T2 - Common Market Law Review

AU - Zahn, Rebecca

N1 - This document is a pre-edited work and has been accepted for publisher in the Common Market Law Review.

PY - 2014/10

Y1 - 2014/10

N2 - In the context of healthcare, the ECJ's jurisprudence has recently been clarified and codified in Directive 2011/24/EU on patients' rights in cross-border healthcare ("Patients' Mobility Directive"). Two judgments recently issued by the ECJ make interesting reading in this regard. While the facts of Femarbel and Ottica do not bear much resemblance to each other, the judgments illustrate that the definition of what falls under the umbrella of healthcare services is not always obvious. Moreover, the cases provide a timely example of attempts by commercial interest groups to use EU law to open up domestic healthcare markets to private, commercial service providers. As such, the judgments have the potential to provide more clarity on the scope of the Directive 2006/123 on services in the internal market ("the Services Directive") and Member States' discretion in regulating healthcare provision in their territory. Finally, the judgments provide further examples of the ECJ's willingness to adjudicate in cases concerning wholly internal situations.

AB - In the context of healthcare, the ECJ's jurisprudence has recently been clarified and codified in Directive 2011/24/EU on patients' rights in cross-border healthcare ("Patients' Mobility Directive"). Two judgments recently issued by the ECJ make interesting reading in this regard. While the facts of Femarbel and Ottica do not bear much resemblance to each other, the judgments illustrate that the definition of what falls under the umbrella of healthcare services is not always obvious. Moreover, the cases provide a timely example of attempts by commercial interest groups to use EU law to open up domestic healthcare markets to private, commercial service providers. As such, the judgments have the potential to provide more clarity on the scope of the Directive 2006/123 on services in the internal market ("the Services Directive") and Member States' discretion in regulating healthcare provision in their territory. Finally, the judgments provide further examples of the ECJ's willingness to adjudicate in cases concerning wholly internal situations.

KW - healthcare

KW - European Union

KW - cross border healthcare

UR - http://search.proquest.com/docview/1646983664/B402987E918540A0PQ/9?accountid=14116

M3 - Article

VL - 51

SP - 1521

EP - 1538

JO - Common Market Law Review

JF - Common Market Law Review

SN - 0165-0750

IS - 5

ER -