Case C-300/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State by decision of that court of 13 July 2004 in the case of M.G. Eman and O.B. Sevinger against het College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van Den Haag
Date: 2004-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Aruba, European Parliament, European citizenship, European election, Netherlands Antilles, interpretation of the law, overseas countries and territories, right to vote

C 228/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.9.2004

4. If question 1 is answered in the negative: Can an interested
party usefully appeal against Article 220(2) of the CCC,
introduction and indent (b), as this provision read prior to
19 December 2000, in a situation in which it cannot subse-
quently be ascertained whether, at the time of issue, the
customs authorities had good grounds for issuing a EUR.1
certificate and were right to issue one?

her professional career and the calculation of her seniority,
from that moment, and on the same conditions as all the
other applicants who have obtained posts, notwithstanding
that, according to the provisions of domestic law applicable
in her case, the exercise of the rights associated with the
actual performance of work may be suspended until such
time as she actually commences work?

(1) OJ L 311 of 12.12.2000, p. 17.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the Juzgado
de lo Social No 30 de Madrid of 5 July 2004 in the case
between C. Sarkatzis Herrero and Instituto Madrileño de
la Salud

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State
by decision of that court of 13 July 2004 in the case of
M.G. Eman and O.B. Sevinger against het College van
Burgemeester en Wethouders van Den Haag

(Case C-294/04)

(2004/C 228/57)

(Case C-300/04)

(2004/C 228/58)

A reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo Social No 30
de Madrid of 5 July 2004 for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between C. Sarkatzis Herrero and the Instituto
Madrileño de la Salud and received at the Court Registry on 12
July 2004.

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by decision of the Raad van State (Council
of State) (Netherlands) of 13 July 2004, received at the Court
Registry on 15 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of M.G. Eman and O.B. Sevinger against het College van Burge-
meester en Wethouders van Den Haag (Municipal Executive of
The Hague) on the following questions:

The Juzgado de lo Social No 30 de Madrid has requested the
Court of Justice to rule on the following questions:

1. Must the Community provisions on maternity leave and
equal treatment for men and women in access to work be
interpreted as meaning that a woman on maternity leave
who while in that situation obtains a post in the public
service must enjoy the same rights as the other applicants
who have been successful in the competition for access to
the public service?

2. Irrespective of what might have occurred in the case of an
employee taking up a post for the first time, if the employ-
ment relationship was in force, albeit suspended, while she
was on maternity leave, does access to the status of perma-
nent employee constitute one of the rights associated with
career advancement whose effectiveness cannot be affected
by the fact that the person concerned is on maternity leave?

1. Does Part Two of the Treaty apply to persons who possess
the nationality of a Member State and who are resident or
living in a territory belonging to the OCTs referred to in
Article 299(3) EC and having special relations with that
Member State?

2. If the answer is no: are the Member States free, in the light
of the second sentence of Article 17(1) EC, to confer their
nationality on persons who are resident or living in the
OCTs referred to in Article 299(3) EC?

3. Must Article 19(2) EC, read in conjunction with Articles
189 EC and 190(1) EC, be construed as meaning that –
apart from the not unusual exceptions in national
legal
systems relating to, inter alia, deprivation of voting rights in
connection with criminal convictions and legal incapacity –
even in the case where the persons concerned are resident
or living in the OCTs, the status of citizen of the Union
automatically confers the right to vote and to stand as a
candidate in elections to the European Parliament?

3. In application of the abovementioned provisions, and in
particular those on equal treatment for men and women in
access to employment or when employment has been
obtained, is a temporary servant who is on maternity leave
when she obtains a permanent post entitled to take up her
administrative post and assume the status of official, with
the rights inherent in such status, such as the initiation of

4. Do Articles 17 EC and 19(2) EC, read together and consid-
ered in the light of Article 3 of the Protocol, as interpreted
by the European Court of Human Rights, preclude persons
who are not citizens of the Union from having the right to
vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European
Parliament?

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/29

5. Does Community law impose requirements as to the nature
of the legal redress to be provided in the case where the
national courts – on the basis of,
inter alia, the answers
given by the Court of Justice of the European Communities
to the above questions – conclude that persons resident or
living in the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba and having
Netherlands nationality were improperly refused registration
for the elections of 10 June 2004?

unlawful, in so far as it applies to products coming from
another Member State of the European Union?

(1) OJ L 204 of 21.7.1998, p.37.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te
Amsterdam by decision of that court of 13 July 2004 in
the case of Jacob Meijer B.V against Inspecteur van de
Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Arnhem

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Voghera, by order of that court of 1 July 2004 in the case
of Lidl Italia Srl against Comune di Stradella

(Case C-304/04)

(2004/C 228/60)

(Case C-303/04)

(2004/C 228/59)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Tribunale di Voghera, of 1
July 2004, received at the Court Registry on 16 July 2004, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Lidl
Italia Srl against
Comune di Stradella on the following question:

— Are the provisions in Article 1 of Directive 83/189/EEC
(now Directive 98/34/EC (1)) on technical standards and
regulations to be interpreted as meaning that a national
legislative provision such as Article 19 of Law No 93 of
23.3.2001, which prohibits the marketing in Italy of non-
biodegradable cotton buds for cleaning ears, comes within
the meaning of ‘technical regulation’
in Article 1 of that
directive?

— If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,
should the provision in Article 19 of Law No 93 of
23.3.2001 have been notified beforehand to the European
Commission on the initiative of the Italian Government in
accordance with Article 8 of Directive 83/189/EEC (now
Directive 98/34/EC) in order to authorise its application in
Italy under Articles 8 and 9 of that directive?

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by decision of
te
Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of Appeal) of 13 July
2004, received at the Court Registry on 19 July 2004, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Jacob Meijer B.V. against
Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Arnhem on
the following question:

the Gerechtshof

Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 (1) of 4 November
1997 amending Annex I
to Council Regulation (EEC) No
2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the
Common Customs Tariff valid in so far as it provides that
heading 8543 89 79 of the Combined Nomenclature includes
the sound cards described at paragraph 2.3 above?

(1) OJ L 312 of 14.11.1997, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te
Amsterdam by decision of that court of 13 July 2004 in
the case of Eagle International Freight B.V. against Inspec-
teur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Arnhem.

(Case C-305/04)

(2004/C 228/61)

— If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative
and if Article 19 of Law No 93 cited above was not notified
to the European Commission, do the principles and rules
on the free movement of goods laid down in Article 28 of
the EC Treaty, in conjunction with the provisions of Direc-
tive 83/189/EEC (now Directive 98/34/EC), allow the Italian
to apply that national provision as being
court not

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by decision of
te
Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of Appeal) of 13 July
2004, received at the Court Registry on 19 July 2004, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Eagle International Freight
B.V. against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict
Arnhem on the following question:

the Gerechtshof