184Similarly, the argument of the Republic of Lithuania that the expression ‘place of residence’ is not clearly defined must be rejected. Having regard to the usual meaning of those words and to the settled case-law of the Court, according to which the place of residence corresponds to the place where the habitual centre of interests of the person concerned is situated (see, to that effect, judgments of 11 November 2004, Adanez-Vega, C‑372/02, EU:C:2004:705, paragraph 37, and of 11 September 2014, B., C‑394/13, EU:C:2014:2199, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited), it must be held that that concept refers, clearly and precisely, to a specific place and not to the territory of a Member State as a whole, as envisaged by the Republic of Lithuania.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.