Background

1. National and regional ombudsmen in the European Network of Ombudsmen may ask the European Ombudsman for written answers to queries about EU law and its interpretation, including those which arise in their handling of specific cases.

2. On 2 December 2025, the Ombudswoman of the Republic of Croatia submitted such a query to the European Ombudsman. The query concerns health insurance for Croatian students studying in other EU countries.

3. In recent years, the Croatian Ombudswoman had received complaints from students and families of students who pursue their studies in another EU country. These complaints related to the loss of health insurance for these students. Indeed, while students studying in another EU country had normally been entitled to health insurance covered by the Croatian State budget, changes to the national law introduced in 2023 resulted in the exclusion from such insurance of all those who register ‘temporary leave from Croatia’. The registration of temporary leave being compulsory when leaving the country for more than a year and with an annual presence of less than three months, many students registered such temporary leave, and, as a consequence, lost their Croatian health insurance.

4. The Croatian Ombudswoman explained that this situation generates a significant administrative and financial burden for the students concerned, who have to cover for their own health insurance while students who remain in Croatia have their health insurance covered by the State budget. In the view of the Croatian Ombudswoman, who had consulted experts on the matter,[1] the situation could violate the right to free movement of these students,[2] and constitute a breach of EU legislation on social security coordination.[3] The Croation Ombudswoman estimated that the problem would concern around 11,000 Croatian citizens who had registered temporary leave to another EU country for the purpose of study, as well as more broadly, all those who had registered such temporary leave for various reasons (medical, family, etc.) but whose residence is still in Croatia.

5. The Croatian Ombudswoman raised her concerns with national authorities on various occasions, but to no avail. In light of the above, she asked for the opinion of the European Commission on the above issue, and whether the practice of generally not providing health insurance to all citizens who temporarily leave Croatia to study in another EU country, without determining the centre of interest in each individual case, constitutes a breach of EU law.

The questions addressed to the Commission

6. Based on the query, the European Ombudsman asked the Commission the following questions:

i. Could the Commission please address the concerns, and the legal considerations raised in the query (and legal opinion) sent by the Croatian Ombudswoman?

ii. In what circumstances and under what conditions can a Member State change its rules on residence, including temporary leave, for the purposes of Directive 2004/38/EC and Regulations 883/2004 and 987/2009?

iii. Are Member States required to ensure that one or more of the indicative factors laid down in Article 11 of Regulation 987/2009 are taken into account before determining the residence of one of its nationals or those with the right to permanent residence within its territory?

iv. Could the amendment to the Croatian Mandatory Health Insurance Act introduced in 2023 amount to a restriction on the right to free movement by placing at a disadvantage some students simply because they have exercised their right to free movement, in line with the case-law of the EU Courts?

The Commission’s reply

7. On 10 February 2026, the Commission replied to the query.

8. In its reply, the Commission explained that EU legislation on social security coordination was established to support the right of free movement of EU citizens. The rules are intended to ensure that individuals are not left without cover (including healthcare cover) when they move across the EU, but also to guarantee that they are subject to the social insurance system of only one country. The concept of ‘residence’, defined as the place where a person habitually resides[4] – and where the person’s habitual centre of interests can be found[5] – plays an important role in determining which national legislation applies. The Commission underlined that the concept of ‘residence’ is an autonomous concept of EU law, and that, while Member States are free to amend their social security systems and rules on national registration (within the limits set out by case law), they cannot, in doing so, alter the meaning of ‘habitual residence’ nor confuse it with other types of residence such as foreseen under national law.

9. A crucial aspect of the concept of ‘residence’, as defined by EU legislation on social security coordination, is that the simple fact that a person has remained in a Member State for a long period of time does not mean that they habitually reside in that Member State.

10. Rather, to determine a person’s place of residence, decision-makers must take into account several factors, which include the person’s family situation and ties, employment and other activities, housing situation, tax residence, and their overall intentions in relation to the move. In the case of students, the source of their income must also be taken into consideration.[6] The Commission underlined that its guidance on the right to free movement of EU citizens and their families specifically mentions the situation of students, and states that ‘…persons who move only temporarily to another Member State remain habitually resident in their Member State of origin and are thus covered by the social security system of the Member State of origin (e.g. a student who moved temporarily from his or her Member State of origin to pursue studies in another Member State will be covered by the Member State of origin, not the Member State where he or she studies)’ (emphasis added).[7]

11. Thus, the Commission concluded that the fact that students register their temporary leave from Croatia is not in itself an indication that they have changed their habitual residence within the meaning of EU law. An automatic decision to remove their right to be covered under the Croatian health insurance, which does not take into account the factors listed in Regulation 987/2009, is not compliant with the EU social security coordination rules.

12. The Commission nonetheless underlined that the exercise of free movement does not create a guarantee that a mobile citizen will retain all advantages previously enjoyed in the Member State of origin. Thus, loss of access to national health insurance coverage, if it results from the application of general and nationality-neutral rules, does not necessarily amount to a restriction on the right to free movement. The situation is different if this measure places EU citizens at a disadvantage specifically because they have exercised that right to free movement. In any event, in the particular case at issue, it remains that the social security institutions concerned have an obligation to take into account all relevant criteria set out by Regulation 987/2009 to assess the ‘habitual residence’ of the students concerned before deciding to exclude them from the national health insurance scheme.

13. The Commission thanked the Croatian Ombudsman for requesting its opinion on the application of EU law in the matter at issue, emphasising that it values the opportunity to contribute in this way to the national enforcement of EU rules.

The European Ombudsman’s conclusion

14. On 19 June 2026, the Croatian Ombudsman confirmed that the reply of the Commission answered her questions and thanked the European Ombudsman for her assistance.

15. The Ombudsman considers that the issues raised in the query have been adequately clarified. The Ombudsman therefore closes the query.

The Croatian Ombudsman and the Commission will be informed of this report.

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 24/06/2026

 

[1] See expert opinion from the scholars of the Department of European Public Law at the Law Faculty of Zagreb, sought and transferred by the Croatian Ombudsman, available at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/doc/correspondence/228169

[2] Such as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/tfeu_2008/art_21/oj/eng), Article 45 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT), as well as Directive 2004/38/EC (available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2004/38/oj/eng) 

[3] Regulation 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32004R0883 ; and Regulation 987/2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32009R0987)

[4] Article 1(j) of Regulation 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32004R0883 

[5] Judgment of the Court of 5 June 2014, Case C-255/13, I v Health Service Executive, paragraphs 43-44, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62013CJ0255

[6] Article 11 of Regulation 987/2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32009R0987

[7] “Guidance on the right of free movement of EU citizens and their families”. See points 5.2.2., 11.3 and 11.4., available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C_202301392.