The Grand Chamber of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) has published an advisory opinion regarding the request from Kyrgyzstan, which sought clarifications on issues related to mandatory health insurance (MHI) in the context of labor migration. This information was announced by the court's press service and conveyed by the TASS agency.
In the section dedicated to the court's conclusions, it is emphasized that "paragraph 3 of Article 98 of the Treaty [on the EAEU dated May 29, 2014] establishes the obligations of the member states of the Union to ensure social security (including mandatory health insurance) for workers from other Union countries and their families on the same terms as for the citizens of the state where they work."
The document also clarifies that the specific conditions and rules for providing mandatory health insurance, as well as the sources of its financing and the scope of medical services, are determined by the legislation of the country where the labor activity is carried out.
According to the conclusion, the procedure for regulating the rights of workers and their family members to receive medical assistance under the treaty is established by paragraph 4 of Article 98 and the Protocol on Medical Assistance (Appendix No. 30 to the Treaty), which do not address aspects of mandatory health insurance.
Separate Opinion of the Judge
The press service also published a separate opinion from Judge Natalia Pavlova. She expressed doubts about the legality of the judicial act, pointing to existing violations of the court's jurisdiction and possible abuses of law. “<...> I also cannot agree with some of the arguments presented in justification of the main conclusions of the advisory opinion,” noted Pavlova. She explained that Kyrgyzstan's request essentially represented the position of a party involved in a dispute and contained arguments indicating a conflict with another state that is a member of the EAEU.
“I cannot fully agree with the wording of the judicial act due to their insufficient clarity,” added the judge. Pavlova emphasized that, considering the various interpretations of norms among the member states of the Union, the legal position of the court should be as clear and comprehensive as possible to ensure a unified understanding of the legal order of the EAEU.
Citing the provisions of the 2014 treaty, the judge noted that it does not imply the automatic provision of social insurance to workers and their families on par with the citizens of the host state, requiring the establishment of specific conditions in each case. “The court should have clearly defined and explained the main of these conditions,” she concluded.
The record "The EAEU Court issued a conclusion on Kyrgyzstan's request for clarifications on MHI issues" first appeared on K-News.
