- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-679/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 30 December 2016 — A
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016CN0679
62016CN0679
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 86/16
(Case C-679/16)
(2017/C 086/20)
Language of the case: Finnish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: A
Other party: Espoon kaupungin sosiaali- ja terveyslautakunnan yksilöasioiden jaosto
Questions referred
1.Is a benefit such as personal assistance in accordance with the Disability Services Law a sickness benefit within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 883/2004? (1)
2.If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, are the rights of Union citizens to move and reside freely in the territory of another Member State, laid down in Articles 20 and 21 TFEU, restricted in a situation in which the grant abroad of a benefit such as personal assistance in accordance with the Disability Services Law is not separately provided for and the conditions for grant of the benefit are interpreted in such a way that personal assistance is not granted in another Member State in which the person completes a three-year course of higher education studies leading to a degree?
—Is it relevant, in assessing the matter, that a benefit such as personal assistance may be granted in Finland in a municipality other than the person’s home municipality, for example when the person is studying in another municipality in Finland?
—Must relevance be attached, in assessing the matter with respect to EU law, to the rights derived from Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons?
3.If the Court of Justice considers, in its answer to Question 2, that an interpretation of national law such as that in the present case constitutes a restriction of freedom of movement, is such a restriction none the less justifiable on compelling grounds of the public interest in connection with the obligation of the municipality to supervise the arranging of personal assistance, the municipality’s possibilities of choosing the most suitable way of arranging assistance, and the maintenance of the coherence and efficacy of the system of personal assistance in accordance with the Disability Services Law?
* Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p. 1).
ECLI:EU:C:2017:140