8.5.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/15

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett in the Case of Olga Rindal v the Norwegian State represented by the Board of Exemptions and Appeals for Treatment Abroad

(Case E-11/07)

(2008/C 113/12)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 14 December 2007 from Borgarting lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court Registry on 19 December 2007, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Olga Rindal v the Norwegian State represented by the Board of Exemptions and Appeals for Treatment Abroad, on the following questions:

1.

Is it compatible with Articles 36 and 37 of the EEA Agreement and Article 22 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to refuse coverage of expenses for treatment abroad which according to international medicine must be considered experimental or test treatment, when there is no entitlement to such treatment in the home State?

2.

Is it of significance for the answer to Question No 1 that the method of treatment itself is internationally recognised and documented, but where this only applies to other medical indications than those which the patient in question has?

3.

Is it compatible with Articles 36 and 37 of the EEA Agreement to refuse coverage of expenses for hospital treatment abroad if the patient in the home State can receive an offer of adequate medical treatment assessed according to accepted international methods within a medically justifiable time limit?

Is it of significance for the answer to Question No 3 whether coverage of such expenses may be refused even if the treatment abroad is considered as possibly more advanced than the treatment in the home State?

4.

Is it of significance for the answers to the questions above whether:

(a)

the home State as a matter of fact does not offer the treatment received abroad?

(b)

the patient as a matter of fact has not been offered the treatment in question in the home State even if the treatment is offered there?

(c)

the patient has been assessed in the home State, but has not been given the offer of further surgical treatment because the patient is not considered to get documented benefit from the treatment?

(d)

the treatment given abroad actually resulted in an improvement of the specific patient's state of health?