# C_2019182EN.01002301.xml

| 27.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 20 March 2019 — A v Veselības ministrija

(Case C-243/19)

(2019/C 182/28)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: Veselības ministrija

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, in conjunction with Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may refuse to grant the authorisation referred to in Article 20(1) of that regulation where hospital care, the medical effectiveness of which is not contested, is available in the person’s Member State of residence, even though the method of treatment used is contrary to that person’s religious beliefs? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, in conjunction with Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may refuse to grant the authorisation referred to in Article 20(1) of that regulation where hospital care, the medical effectiveness of which is not contested, is available in the person’s Member State of residence, even though the method of treatment used is contrary to that person’s religious beliefs?

| 2. | Must Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 8(5) of Directive 2011/24/EU (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients' rights in cross-border healthcare, in conjunction with Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may refuse to grant the authorisation referred to in Article 8(1) of that directive where hospital care, the medical effectiveness of which is not contested, is available in the person’s Member State of affiliation, even though the method of treatment used is contrary to that person’s religious beliefs? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 8(5) of Directive 2011/24/EU (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients' rights in cross-border healthcare, in conjunction with Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may refuse to grant the authorisation referred to in Article 8(1) of that directive where hospital care, the medical effectiveness of which is not contested, is available in the person’s Member State of affiliation, even though the method of treatment used is contrary to that person’s religious beliefs?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2011 L 88, p. 45.

---