Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 26 August 2019 — Y v CAK

(Case C-636/19)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Y

Defendant: CAK

Questions referred

Must Directive 2011/24/EU ¹ be interpreted as meaning that persons referred to in Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, ² who receive benefits in their country of residence at the expense of the Netherlands but who are not insured in the Netherlands under the statutory health insurance scheme can rely directly on that directive for the reimbursement of costs of care provided?

If not,

Does it follow from Article 56 TFEU that, in a case such as the present one, not granting reimbursement for care provided in a Member State other than the country of residence or the country providing the pension is an unjustified obstacle to the free movement of services?

____________

¹     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 (OJ 2011 L 88, p. 45).

²     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).