Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/11

(Case C-255/13)(1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Articles 19(1) and 20(1) and (2) - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 11 - National of a Member State insured in his State of residence - Sudden serious illness occurring while on holiday in another Member State - Person compelled to remain in that second Member State for 11 years as a result of his illness and the fact that specialist medical care is available close to the place where he lives - Provision of benefits in kind in the second Member State - Definition of ‘residence’ and ‘stay’))

2014/C 253/14

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: I

Defendant: Health Service Executive

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Ireland — Interpretation of Articles 19(1) and 20(1) and (2) of 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 2004 L 166, p. 1) — Concept of ‘staying’ in a Member State other than the competent Member State — Citizen of a Member State suffering for 11 years from a serious medical condition which first manifested itself during a holiday in a second Member State — Citizen compelled to remain in the second Member State as a result of his medical condition

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(j) and (k) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of Article 19(1) or Article 20(1) and (2) of that regulation, where a European Union national who was resident in one Member State suffers a sudden serious illness while on holiday in a second Member State and is compelled to remain in the latter State for 11 years as a result of that illness and the fact that specialist medical care is available close to the place where he lives, such a person must be regarded as ‘staying’ in the second Member State if the habitual centre of his interests is in the first Member State. It is for the national court to determine the habitual centre of such a person’s interests by carrying out an assessment of all the relevant facts and taking into account that person’s intention, as may be discerned from those facts, the mere fact that that person has remained in the second Member State for a long time not being sufficient in itself alone for him to be regarded as residing in that Member State.

Language of the case: English

(1) OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.