# C_2013189EN.01000302.xml

| 29.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 12 April 2013 — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v L.F. Evans

(Case C-179/13)

2013/C 189/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (Svb)

Applicant:

Defendant: L.F. Evans

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 2 and/or Article 16 of Regulation 1408/71 (1) be construed as meaning that a person like Evans, who is a national of a Member State, who exercised her right of freedom of movement for workers, to whom the social security legislation of the Netherlands was applicable and who then went to work as a member of the service staff of the Consulate General of the United States of America in the Netherlands, from the commencement of such work no longer falls under the personal scope of Regulation 1408/71?
  If not: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 2 and/or Article 16 of Regulation 1408/71 (1) be construed as meaning that a person like Evans, who is a national of a Member State, who exercised her right of freedom of movement for workers, to whom the social security legislation of the Netherlands was applicable and who then went to work as a member of the service staff of the Consulate General of the United States of America in the Netherlands, from the commencement of such work no longer falls under the personal scope of Regulation 1408/71?

1

If not:

| 2. | (a) | Must Article 3 of Regulation 1408/71 and/or Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 (2) be construed as meaning that the application of privileged status to Evans, which in this case consists inter alia of not being compulsorily insured for the purposes of social security and of not paying contributions in that regard, should be considered a sufficient justification for discriminating on grounds of nationality? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

(a)

Must Article 3 of Regulation 1408/71 and/or Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 (2) be construed as meaning that the application of privileged status to Evans, which in this case consists inter alia of not being compulsorily insured for the purposes of social security and of not paying contributions in that regard, should be considered a sufficient justification for discriminating on grounds of nationality?

2

| (b) | What significance must be attached in that regard to the fact that in December 1999 Evans, when asked, opted for the continuation of the privileged status? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

What significance must be attached in that regard to the fact that in December 1999 Evans, when asked, opted for the continuation of the privileged status?

---

(1)  Council Regulation of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).

1

(2)  Council Regulation of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475).

2

---