CYIL vol. 12 (2021)

CYIL 12 (2021) The impact of the adoption of the Framework Agreement… the most quickly accessible and, taking into account the patient‘s health condition, a suitable medical facility designated by the relevant medical operating center. It is obvious that the Framework Agreement brings a somewhat different concept of the intervention of the emergency medical service in comparison with the definition of pre- hospital emergency care in Act No. 374/2011 Coll. While in the case of § 3 letter e) ZZSl is intended to be provided at the place of serious disability or direct threat to life (for this place it introduces the legislative abbreviation „place of event“), it is according to Article 1 (8) of the Framework Agreement the place where the patient is in the moment the members of the field team reach it. It is clear from the above that the intervention of the emergency medical service from the other contracting party in the framework of cross-border cooperation may occur elsewhere than where a serious disability has occurred. The place to which the patient is subsequently transported for further follow-up care is also defined differently. According to the Framework Agreement, it should always be the fastest available medical facility suitable with regard to the patient‘s state of health. Therefore, it is not necessarily a facility providing acute care according to Act No. 374/2011 Coll., even in the event of a disability in the Czech Republic. Pursuant to Article 4 (4) point a) 4. at the same time, framework agreements shall apply that, if his state of health so permits, a patient who is resident in the territory of one Contracting Party at the time of the intervention of the field group shall, as a general rule, be transported to the territory of that Contracting Party. The Framework Agreement does not provide for a variant of cross-border cooperation in the provision of urgent pre-hospital care other than that just described. The cross-border cooperation covered by the Framework Agreement will not be a mere cooperation of the Czech emergency medical service with the German operations center, the provision of information, etc. By the logic of the matter, the case where the co-operation of the German rescue service is requested will not be a cross-border intervention subject to the Framework Agreement, but it will not exceed the borders of Germany. At first sight, it is therefore clear that the Treaty significantly shifts the possibility of intervention by emergency medical services in the territory of another Member State, even outside the place where the disability occurred. The patient may then be transported other than to an acute inpatient care provider and, if possible, should be transported to a medical facility in the territory of the state in which he resides. On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that these differences in the provision of emergency care by the emergency medical service are limited in that they occur only if cross-border cooperation within the meaning of the framework agreement is activated. In no case does the contract impose an obligation to initiate cross-border cooperation of rescue services at any time if an intervention takes place, resp. if the intervention of the emergency medical service is needed near the state border. Even after the adoption of the Framework Agreement, it continues to be the case that the provision of emergency medical services in the territory of both Contracting States is governed by the principle of territoriality. Each state has this medical service. It always provides primarily himself and is also responsible for the proper provision of such a service. The fact that there is no cross-border cooperation without requesting and sending a field team needs to be emphasized. The framework agreement defines the border areas in which cooperation is to be implemented relatively widely. In the Czech Republic these are the Liberec Region, the Ústí nad Labem Region, the Karlovy Vary Region, the Pilsen

451