Region: Europe
Year: 2003
Court: Court of Arbitration [Cour d’arbitrage]
Health Topics: Health systems and financing
Tags: Health care professionals, Health insurance, Health regulation
Two doctors’ associations sought an action for the retroactive annulment of article 28 of the Law of 14 January 2002, which established the payment of an indemnity for misconduct as concerns the charging of benefits by a care dispenser. The relevant law had already been annulled, but the complainants were concerned that since the annulment was not retroactive the law would still apply before the date of annulment.
The Court reminded the parties that Article 173bis was repealed and that any action from the date of repeal had “lost its purpose.” The Court also noted that there was no proof that the contested provision was ever enforced and thus held that the complainants did not have standing to act.
« B.2. Il résulte de cette abrogation que, à partir de cette date, le recours a perdu son objet. Il y a lieu, par contre, d'examiner si le recours reste recevable, en ce qu'il porte sur l'article 173bis précité avant cette date.
B.3.1. Selon les parties requérantes, elles conserveraient un intérêt à l'annulation de l'article 173bis dans la mesure où « il n'est pas exclu que des dispensateurs de soins aient pu être inquiétés » par cette disposition.
B.3.2. Il n'apparaît pas - et les parties requérantes ne démontrent pas davantage - que l'article 173bis de la loi du 14 juillet 1994 ait, avant son abrogation, fait l'objet d'une exécution.
La Cour constate en particulier que n'ont pas été adoptés les arrêtés royaux, prescrits par les alinéas 1er et 4 de l'article 173bis. »
“B.2. It follows from this repeal that, from this date, the action has lost its purpose. It is however relevant to examine if the action remains admissible, insofar as it relates to article 173bis above mentioned before this date.
B.3.1. According to the complainants, they maintain a standing to act as relates to the annulment of article 173bis insofar as “it shall not be excluded that care dispensers might have been troubled” by this provision.
B.3.2. It does not appear – and the complainants do not demonstrate this further – that article 173bis of the law of 14 July 1994 has, before its repeal, been enforced.
The Court finds in particular that have not been adopted the royal decrees, required by paragraphs 1 and 4 of article 173bis.
Since article 173bis has not been enforced and that it was repealed by article 29, 6°, of the programme law of 24 December 2002, a provision which was not contested, the complainants do not have standing to act for the annulment of the contested provision.”