Recently, the Grand Chamber of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union issued an advisory opinion in response to a request from Kyrgyzstan regarding the clarification of provisions of the labor migration agreement related to mandatory medical insurance (MMI). This information was published by the court's press service, referring to the document, TASS reports.
In the section "Court Conclusions," it is emphasized that "paragraph 3 of Article 98 of the Treaty [on the Eurasian Economic Union dated May 29, 2014] establishes an agreement among the member states of the Union to provide social security (including mandatory medical insurance) for workers from these countries and their families on the same terms as for the citizens of the host country."
The document also clarifies that the conditions and procedures for mandatory medical insurance, including sources of funding, types, and scope of medical assistance, are determined by the legislation of the member state of the Union where the labor activity is carried out.
“The methods of regulating the rights of workers and their families to receive medical services under the agreement are determined by the provisions of paragraph 4 of Article 98 of the Treaty and the Protocol on Medical Assistance (Appendix No. 30 to the Treaty), which do not address issues of mandatory medical insurance,” the opinion states.
Judge's Dissenting Opinion
Additionally, the press service published the dissenting opinion of Judge Natalia Pavlova. She expressed the view that “this court decision (advisory opinion) should not have been adopted, as the proceedings in the case should have been terminated due to violations of the norms regarding the court's jurisdiction and abuse of rights.” “<...> I also disagree with some of the arguments presented to justify the main conclusions of the court's advisory opinion,” her document notes. The judge emphasized that Kyrgyzstan's request for clarification “actually represented the position of a party involved in a dispute and articulating its point of view, indicating the grounds for claims that evidenced the existence of a dispute with another member state of the EAEU.”
“I do not fully agree with the formulations in the reasoning part of the court act due to their incompleteness and lack of clarity,” Pavlova added. In her opinion, considering that there are different viewpoints among the member states of the Union regarding the norms for which clarification was requested, “the legal position of the court should be as clear and complete as possible to ensure unity in the legal order of the EAEU.”
Referring to the provisions of the 2014 treaty, the judge believes that this document does not imply the automatic provision of social insurance to workers from member states and their families on par with the citizens of the host country, requiring the definition of relevant conditions in each specific case. “In this regard, the court should have more clearly outlined and explained the main of these conditions,” she added.
The entry "The EAEU Court issued a conclusion on Kyrgyzstan's request for clarification on MMI issues" first appeared on K-News.
