CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 avril 2023

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Legal summary May 2023 Arjocu v. Romania (communicated case) - 56630/22   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deprivation of property Possessions National authorities’ refusal to reimburse applicant’s costs for urgent medical treatment obtained in another EU Member State: communicated The applicant alleged that the medical treatment proposed to him in Romania for the larynx malign tumour he had been diagnosed with, had been to remove his vocal cord and part of his larynx, which would have left him with a permanent handicap, namely the incapacity to speak as well as being fed through a tube for the rest of his life. He sought a second medical opinion and followed a less invasive treatment at a clinic in Austria, with only the tumour being removed. The applicant paid the entire cost of the treatment and hospitalisation at the clinic in Austria, amounting to 15,000 euros, after his request for prior authorisation through the issuance of a “E112 form”, necessary to benefit from cross-border medical assistance according to the EU law, could not be obtained in due time. His claims for reimbursement the cost of that treatment were dismissed by the regional health insurance house and, subsequently, the national courts. Invoking Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention, and in substance, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains that the national authorities failed to comply with their positive obligations under Article   2 and infringed his right to a fair trial by arbitrarily ignoring the EU law and CJUE case-law applicable to his claim of reimbursement of the costs of the medical treatment undergone in Austria, while the defendant party did not adduce proof of an equivalent less‑invasive treatment available in Romania. Communicated under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .