The question Articles 17(7) and 60(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 left open was not whether a migrant worker could claim benefits in kind abroad, but precisely which benefits obliged the institution of the place of stay to notify the competent institution before or immediately after authorising them. Decision No 116 of 15 December 1982 answers that question with an enumerated list, country-specific monetary thresholds, and a two-tier urgency framework that compresses or eliminates the notification sequence whenever life, health, or an accidentally broken appliance demands immediate action. Decision No 116, preamble and paras. 1–4
The Administrative Commission and Its Mandate
The Administrative Commission of the European Communities on Social Security for Migrant Workers adopted Decision No 116 under Article 81 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971, which vests in the Commission responsibility for all administrative questions and questions of interpretation arising from Regulation 1408/71 and its implementing legislation. Decision No 116, preamble; Regulation 1408/71, Art. 81 The trigger was the need to specify the benefits referred to in Article 17(7) and Article 60(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72, as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2793/81. Decision No 116, preamble
Published in OJ C 193 on 20 July 1983, Decision No 116 replaced Decision No 93 of 24 January 1974 and applies from 1 January 1983. Decision No 116, para. 6 Decision No 93 governs authorisations given between 24 January 1974 and 31 December 1982; Decision No 116 governs from 1 January 1983.
Paragraph 1: Defining the Relevant Benefits
The foundational definition in paragraph 1 is anchored to national law. The benefits in question are those provided for by the legislation of the place of residence or of stay, the granting of which is subject to the prior authorization of the institution implementing this legislation. Decision No 116, para. 1 The Decision creates no free-standing Community catalogue; it directs the practitioner to the relevant national legislation and asks whether it conditions the grant on prior institutional authorisation.
The E114 Notification: Two Independent Triggers
Paragraph 2 imposes the core procedural obligation. When the institution of the place of residence or stay gives prior authorisation for a benefit in kind, it must inform the competent institution of its decision using the E114 form — if either of two independent conditions is satisfied. Decision No 116, para. 2
Trigger One: The Enumerated List
The first trigger is categorical. Notification is required if the benefit falls within the list in paragraph 2.1:
→ Surgical appliances, orthopaedic appliances and supporting apparatus including orthopaedic corsets of reinforced material, and any additional parts, accessories and aids Decision No 116, para. 2.1(a)
→ Orthopaedic footwear and remedial footwear (non-orthopaedic) Decision No 116, para. 2.1(b)
→ Maxillary and facial prostheses, wigs Decision No 116, para. 2.1(c)
→ Ocular prostheses, contact lenses, magnifying and telescopic spectacles Decision No 116, para. 2.1(d)
→ Hearing aids Decision No 116, para. 2.1(e)
→ Dental prostheses (fixed and removable) and obturators for use in the buccal cavity Decision No 116, para. 2.1(f)
→ Invalid vehicles (manually operated or motorized), wheelchairs and other mechanical means permitting the disabled to move about, guide dogs for the blind Decision No 116, para. 2.1(g)
→ Renewal of any of the items in (a) to (g) Decision No 116, para. 2.1(h)
→ Spa treatment Decision No 116, para. 2.1(i)
→ Accommodation and medical treatment in a convalescent home, sanatorium, institute or home for handicapped persons, or open-air sanatorium; and any stay in a preventorium that exceeds or is expected to exceed 20 days in the opinion of the attending physician or, where the legislation of the country of stay so requires, of the medical consultant of the institution Decision No 116, para. 2.1(j)
→ Functional or occupational rehabilitation Decision No 116, para. 2.1(k)
→ Any subsidy covering part of the cost of items (a) to (k) Decision No 116, para. 2.1(l)
The subsidy item at (l) is a catch-all: where the authorisation takes the form of a partial cost subsidy rather than direct provision, the notification duty still applies. The list is closed; a benefit not appearing on it must cross the monetary threshold to trigger the E114 obligation.
Trigger Two: Country-Specific Monetary Thresholds
The second trigger is financial. Even if the benefit does not appear on the enumerated list, notification is required where the expected or actual cost exceeds the flat-rate amount applicable to the institution of the place of residence. Decision No 116, para. 2.2 The thresholds as fixed for 1 January 1983 were:
→ Belgium: Bfrs 20,000 → Denmark: Dkr 3,600 → Germany: DM 1,000 → Greece: Dr 29,300 → France: FF 2,900 → Ireland: £Irl 300 → Italy: Lit 590,000 → Luxembourg: Lfrs 20,000 → Netherlands: Fl 1,100 → United Kingdom: £240
The thresholds apply to the cost expected or actually incurred: for retrospective claims, the actual cost on final invoicing governs, not the original estimate.
The Exceptions: Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3 of Decision No 116 sets out four situations in which the paragraph 2 notification duty does not arise, even where a trigger would otherwise be satisfied:
→ The application of Article 22(1)(c) and Article 55(1)(c) of Regulation 1408/71 — the employed- and self-employed-person authorisation route for treatment in another Member State Decision No 116, para. 3(a)
→ Reimbursement on the basis of lump sums Decision No 116, para. 3(b)
→ Waiving of reimbursement of expenditure Decision No 116, para. 3(c)
→ Cases where the competent institution is in the United Kingdom Decision No 116, para. 3(d)
The UK exception in paragraph 3(d) is the most operationally significant: it removed the E114 notification burden for the entire caseload where the competent institution was in the United Kingdom, making it the threshold question for any historical file from the 1983–2019 period.
Urgency and Extreme Urgency: Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4 introduces the two-tier urgency framework that supplies the article's central case study — the broken hearing aid.
The urgent cases referred to in Article 20 of Regulation 1408/71 and the cases of extreme urgency referred to in Articles 17(7) and 60(6) of Regulation 574/72 are those in which the provision of a benefit within the meaning of paragraph 1 cannot be postponed without endangering the life or health of the person concerned. Decision No 116, para. 4 Administrative delay or inconvenience alone does not constitute urgency.
Extreme urgency operates on a different and narrower axis. Where one of the items listed in paragraph 2.1(a) to (g) — the prosthetic and assistive device categories — is accidentally broken or damaged, extreme urgency means that replacement of that appliance or benefit is necessary. Decision No 116, para. 4
Paragraph 5: Scope of Application
The rules in paragraphs 1 to 4 apply to a specific cross-reference map set out in paragraph 5. On the Regulation 1408/71 side, the applicable provisions are Articles 19, 22, 25(1) and 3(i), 31(a), 52(a) and 55(1). Decision No 116, para. 5
On the Regulation 574/72 side, the applicable provisions are Articles 17(7), 20(5), 21(2), 22(2) and (3), 23, 26(3), 27, 31(2) and (3), 60(6), 62(7) and 63(2) and (3). Decision No 116, para. 5
The substantive claim must arise under one of the Regulation 1408/71 articles listed — most commonly Article 19 (residence) or Article 22 (stay in another Member State) — and the procedural steps must comply with the applicable Regulation 574/72 implementing article. Where neither condition is met, Decision No 116 does not govern.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the legal basis for Decision No 116, and which body adopted it?
Decision No 116 was adopted by the Administrative Commission of the European Communities on Social Security for Migrant Workers under Article 81 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, which charges that body with responsibility for all administrative questions and questions of interpretation arising from the Regulation and subsequent Regulations. Decision No 116, preamble; Regulation 1408/71, Art. 81 The Decision interprets Article 17(7) and Article 60(6) of Regulation 574/72 and Article 20 of Regulation 1408/71, and was published in OJ C 193 of 20 July 1983.
Is the E114 notification required for every prior authorisation of a benefit in kind?
No. The E114 notification duty arises only where the authorised benefit appears on the enumerated list in paragraph 2.1 of the Decision, or where the expected or actual cost exceeds the applicable country-specific flat-rate threshold in paragraph 2.2. Decision No 116, para. 2 Even when a trigger is satisfied, the duty is disapplied in the four situations in paragraph 3: Article 22(1)(c) and 55(1)(c) cases, lump-sum reimbursements, waived reimbursements, and where the competent institution is in the United Kingdom. Decision No 116, para. 3
How does extreme urgency differ from ordinary urgency under Decision No 116?
Ordinary urgency covers any benefit within the scope of paragraph 1 whose postponement would endanger life or health. Decision No 116, para. 4 Extreme urgency is category-specific — items in paragraph 2.1(a)–(g) only — but easier to establish: accidental breakage or damage to a covered appliance automatically constitutes extreme urgency, without a separate endangerment finding. Decision No 116, para. 4
From when did Decision No 116 take effect, and what did it replace?
Decision No 116 applies from 1 January 1983 and replaces Decision No 93 of 24 January 1974. Decision No 116, para. 6 Authorisations given between 24 January 1974 and 31 December 1982 fall under Decision No 93; from 1 January 1983, Decision No 116 governs. Every answer carries its citation.
Primary sources, not summaries. For cross-border social security files across the Union, research settled in seconds at omnilaw.ai
