Case note examines legal distinctions in cross-border telemedicine, highlighting potential regulatory gaps.
This case note examines the landmark judgement in Case C-115/24 (DrSmile), the CJEU’s first ruling specifically addressing cross-border telemedicine. The dispute centred on a hybrid orthodontic model where physical dental acts in Austria were coupled with remote monitoring and treatment planning from Germany. The Court’s decision creates a significant “digital scalpel,” legally slicing the medical act into discrete components. By interpreting Article 3(d) of Directive 2011/24/EU strictly, the Court ruled that only services provided exclusively at a distance qualify as telemedicine. This triggers a legal fiction that anchors regulatory oversight in the provider’s country-of-origin, favouring market integration. However, any physical component remains tethered to the destination state’s regulations. While providing much-needed judicial scaffolding, the author argues that this formalist division creates a clinical-legal gap. By severing indivisible therapeutic processes, the ruling risks creating liability vacuums and professional fragmentation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wendy Kwaku Yeboah (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
More from European Journal of Risk Regulation