# C_2020433EN.01000901.xml

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — A v Veselības ministrija

(Case C-243/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 20(2) - Directive 2011/24/EU - Article 8(1), (5) and (6)(d) - Health insurance - Hospital care provided in a Member State other than the Member State of affiliation - Refusal of prior authorisation - Hospital treatment which can be provided effectively in the Member State of affiliation - Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Difference in treatment based on religion)

(2020/C 433/08)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: Veselības ministrija

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 20(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, read in the light of Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding the insured person’s Member State of residence from refusing to grant that person the authorisation provided for in Article 20(1) of that regulation, where hospital care, the medical effectiveness of which is not contested, is available in that Member State, although the method of treatment used is contrary to that person’s religious beliefs; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 20(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, read in the light of Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding the insured person’s Member State of residence from refusing to grant that person the authorisation provided for in Article 20(1) of that regulation, where hospital care, the medical effectiveness of which is not contested, is available in that Member State, although the method of treatment used is contrary to that person’s religious beliefs;

| 2. | Article 8(5) and (6)(d) of Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, read in the light of Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a patient’s Member State of affiliation from refusing to grant that patient the authorisation provided for in Article 8(1) of that directive, where hospital care, the medical effectiveness of which is not contested, is available in that Member State, although the method of treatment used is contrary to that patient’s religious beliefs, unless that refusal is objectively justified by a legitimate aim relating to maintaining treatment capacity or medical competence, and is an appropriate and necessary means of achieving that aim, which it is for the referring court to determine. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 8(5) and (6)(d) of Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, read in the light of Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a patient’s Member State of affiliation from refusing to grant that patient the authorisation provided for in Article 8(1) of that directive, where hospital care, the medical effectiveness of which is not contested, is available in that Member State, although the method of treatment used is contrary to that patient’s religious beliefs, unless that refusal is objectively justified by a legitimate aim relating to maintaining treatment capacity or medical competence, and is an appropriate and necessary means of achieving that aim, which it is for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

---