Opinion of Mr advocate general Mayras

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

This case comes before the Court for the second time by way of a reference for a preliminary ruling by the Centrale Raad van Beroep [court of last instance in social security matters] Utrecht. On the first occasion the case was numbered 117/77, and the Court gave judgment on 16 March 1978. The judgment appears in the 1978 Reports of Cases before the Court at p. 825.

The relevant facts were fully set out on that occasion, and it seems superfluous to me to recite them again today.

1. Within the framework of the questions previously submitted to the Court in connexion with the dispute between Mrs Pierik, the recipient of an invalidity pension, or more precisely the Bedrijfsvereniging [trade association] to which she was affiliated, and the Ziekenfonds [Sickness Fund] of Drenthe, the Court did not have to rule on the issue of whether the concept of a pensioner within the meaning of Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71 of the Council is more restricted than the concept of a worker used inter alia in Article l.(a) thereof.

2. In its second question, the national court asks this Court whether, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 22 (2), the obligation upon the competent institution to grant the authorization required applies even where the appropriate treatment in question has been deliberately excluded from the scheme of benefits provided under the legislation which that institution administers.

3. In its third question, the national court asks this Court whether the words of Article 22 (1) (c) (i) relate directly to the case in which the institution of the State of temporary stay has discretion to authorize or refuse provision of the treatment in question or whether, before providing the authorization requested, the competent institution must inquire whether the institution of the State of temporary stay would pay for the provision of such treatment for the person concerned if he were insured with the latter. In other words, the Centrale Raad van Beroep would like to know whether the institution of the State of temporary stay has the same powers in relation to a person coming from another Member State to receive treatment in that State as it has in relation to persons directly insured with it.

I am of the opinion that the Court should answer the questions submitted to it as follows:

1 Translated from the French.