9The seventh recital in the preamble to Decision No 194 states:‘The criteria set out in Article 22(1)(a)(i) … cannot be interpreted in such a way that chronic or existing illnesses are excluded. The Court of Justice ruled [in Case C-326/00 IKA [2003] ECR I-1703] that the concept of “necessary treatment” cannot be interpreted “as meaning that [the benefit of that provision is] limited solely to cases where the treatment provided has become necessary because of a sudden illness. In particular, the circumstance that the treatment necessitated by developments in the insured person’s state of health during his temporary stay in another Member State may be linked to a pre-existent pathology of which he is aware, such as a chronic illness, does not mean that the conditions for the application of these provisions are not fulfilled”.’
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.