# C_2020313EN.01000901.xml

| 21.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Appeals Service Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) made on 7 April 2020 — VI v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

(Case C-247/20)

(2020/C 313/11)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Appeals Service Northern Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VI

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a child EEA Permanent Resident required to maintain Comprehensive Sickness Insurance in order to maintain a right to reside, as s/he would as a self-sufficient person, pursuant to Regulation 4(1) of the 2016 Regulations? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a child EEA Permanent Resident required to maintain Comprehensive Sickness Insurance in order to maintain a right to reside, as s/he would as a self-sufficient person, pursuant to Regulation 4(1) of the 2016 Regulations?

| 2. | Is the requirement, pursuant to Regulation 4(3)(b) of The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (that Comprehensive Sickness Insurance cover in the United Kingdom is only satisfied for a student or self-sufficient person, with regard to Regulation 16(2)(b)(ii) of The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, if such cover extends to both that person and all their relevant family members), illegal under EU law in light of Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/38 (1) and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union in paragraph 70 of Teixeira C-480/08? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the requirement, pursuant to Regulation 4(3)(b) of The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (that Comprehensive Sickness Insurance cover in the United Kingdom is only satisfied for a student or self-sufficient person, with regard to Regulation 16(2)(b)(ii) of The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, if such cover extends to both that person and all their relevant family members), illegal under EU law in light of Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/38 (1) and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union in paragraph 70 of Teixeira C-480/08?

| 3. | Following the decision in paragraph 53 of Ahmad v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 988, are the Common Travel Area reciprocal arrangements in place regarding Health Insurance cover between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland considered ‘reciprocal arrangements’ and therefore constitute Comprehensive Sickness Insurance for the purposes of Regulation 4(1) of the 2016 Regulations? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Following the decision in paragraph 53 of Ahmad v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 988, are the Common Travel Area reciprocal arrangements in place regarding Health Insurance cover between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland considered ‘reciprocal arrangements’ and therefore constitute Comprehensive Sickness Insurance for the purposes of Regulation 4(1) of the 2016 Regulations?

---

(1)  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).

---