30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/26

(Case C-535/19)

(2019/C 328/29)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Other party to the appeal in cassation: Latvijas Republikas Veselības ministrija

Questions referred

1.Must publicly-funded health care be regarded as being included in ‘sickness benefits’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 883/2004? (1)

2.In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative, are Member States permitted, under Article 4 of Regulation No 883/2004 and Article 24 of Directive 2004/38, (2) to refuse such benefits — which are granted to their nationals and to family members of a Union citizen having worker status who are in the same situation — to Union citizens who do not at that time have worker status, in order to avoid disproportionate requests for social benefits to ensure health care?

3.In the event that the first question is answered in the negative, are Member States permitted, under Articles 18 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 24 of Directive 2004/38, to refuse such benefits — which are granted to their nationals and to family members of a Union citizen having worker status who are in the same situation — to Union citizens who do not at that time have worker status, in order to avoid disproportionate requests for social benefits to ensure health care?

4.Is it compatible with Article 11(3)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 for a citizen of the European Union who exercises his right to freedom of movement to be placed in a situation in which he is denied the right to receive public health care services financed by the State in all the Member States concerned in the case?

5.Is it compatible with Articles 18, 20(1) and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for a citizen of the European Union who exercises his right to freedom of movement to be placed in a situation in which he is denied the right to receive public health care services financed by the State in all the Member States concerned in the case?

6.Should legality of residence, as provided for in Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38, be understood as giving a person a right of access to the social security system and also as being capable of constituting a reason to exclude him from social security? In particular, in the present case, must the fact that the applicant has comprehensive sickness insurance cover, which constitutes one of the prerequisites for legality of residence under Directive 2004/38, be regarded as capable of justifying the refusal to include him within the health care system financed by the State?

(1) 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).

(2) Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158 p. 77).