C_2021349EN.01000401.xml

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — A

(Case C-535/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Citizenship of the Union - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 3(1)(a) - Sickness benefits - Concept - Article 4 and Article 11(3)(e) - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 7(1)(b) - Right of residence for more than three months - Condition of having comprehensive sickness insurance cover - Article 24 - Equal treatment - Economically inactive national of a Member State residing legally in the territory of another Member State - Refusal by the host Member State to affiliate that person to its public sickness insurance system)

(2021/C 349/04)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Intervening party: Latvijas Republikas Veselības ministrija

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(a) 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, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 988/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that medical care, financed by the State, which is granted, without any individual and discretionary assessment of personal needs, to persons falling within the categories of recipients defined by national legislation, constitutes ‘sickness benefits’ within the meaning of that provision, thus falling within the scope of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009;

Article 11(3)(e) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009, read in the light of Article 7(1)(b) of 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, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes from the right to be affiliated to the public sickness insurance scheme of the host Member State, in order to receive medical care financed by that State, economically inactive Union citizens, who are nationals of another Member State and who fall, by virtue of Article 11(3)(e) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009, within the scope of the legislation of the host Member State and who are exercising their right of residence in the territory of that State under Article 7(1)(b) of that directive;

Article 4 and Article 11(3)(e) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009, and Article 7(1)(b) and Article 24 of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted, by contrast, as not precluding the affiliation of such Union citizens to that system from not being free of charge, in order to prevent those citizens from becoming an unreasonable burden on the public finances of the host Member State.

(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.