Case C-10/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Administrative (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) by judgment of that court of 11 January 2005 in Cynthia Mattern and Hajrudin Cikotic v Ministre du travail et de l'emploi
Date: 2005-03-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Luxembourg, family migration, foreign national, free movement of workers, interpretation of the law, migrant worker, mixed marriage, work permit

19.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/7

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis
Epikratias by decision of that court of 17 November 2004
in Medipac — Th. Kazantzidis A.E. v Venizelio-Pananio
(PE.S.I. Kritis)

(Case C-6/05)

(2005/C 69/14)

(Language of the case: Greek)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by decision of the Simvoulio tis Epikratias
(Council of State, Greece) of 17 November 2004, received at
the Court Registry on 5 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings between Medipac — Th. Kazantzidis A.E.
and Venizelio-Pananio (PE.S.I. Kritis) on the following ques-
tions:

(1) Whenever tender procedures governed by Council Directive
93/36/EEC for the supply of medical devices under Direc-
tive 93/42/EEC are conducted under the lowest-tender
system, is the contracting authority as the purchaser of the
relevant goods able,
in accordance with Directive 93/42,
interpreted in conjunction with Directive 93/36, to reject a
tender for medical devices which bear the CE marking and
have been the subject of a quality check by the competent
certification body, as technically unacceptable at the stage
of the technical assessment, in reliance upon sound objec-
tions relating to their adequacy in terms of quality which
are connected with the protection of public health and the
specific form of use for which those devices are intended
and in view of which objections the devices are considered
inappropriate and unfit for that use (with the self-evident
precondition that those objections are subject to review of
their validity by the court having jurisdiction if there is a
dispute as to whether they pertain)?

Decree DI7/ik.2480/1994 and which enable the relevant
competent authority – which in Greece is the Ministry of
Health, Welfare and Social Security acting through the
Directorate for Biomedical Technology – to take measures
either in accordance with the procedure in Article 8 of the
directive,
if correctly installed and maintained medical
devices may jeopardise the life or safety of patients or
users, or under Article 18 of the directive, if it is established
that the CE marking has been affixed unduly?

(3) In light of the answer to the second question, and in the
event that the abovementioned safeguard clauses must first
be applied, is the contracting authority obliged to await the
outcome of the procedure initiated either under Article 8
or under Article 18 of Directive 93/42 and, further, is it
bound by that outcome in the sense that it is obliged to
procure the article in question even though its use demon-
strably gives rise to risks for public health and generally it
is unsuitable for the use for which the contracting authority
intends it?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Admin-
istrative (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) by judgment of
that court of 11 January 2005 in Cynthia Mattern and
Hajrudin Cikotic v Ministre du travail et de l'emploi

(Case C-10/05)

(2005/C 69/15)

(Language of the case: French)

(2) If the preceding question is answered in the affirmative, is
the contracting authority as the purchaser of the relevant
goods able, for the foregoing reason, directly to consider
medical devices which bear the CE marking unsuitable for
the form of use for which they are intended, or must the
safeguard clauses first be applied which are contained in
Directive 93/42 and the abovementioned Joint Ministerial

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of the Cour administrative
(Higher Administrative Court) (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg)
of 11 January 2005, received at the Court Registry on 14
January 2005,
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Cynthia Mattern and Hajrudin Cikotic and the Ministre
du travail et de l'emploi on the following question:

C 69/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.3.2005

Do Community rules concerning freedom of movement for workers
apply to the situation of a national of a non-member State married to
a Community national who has attended a vocational training course
and professional training in a Member State other than her own, and
may the non-Community spouse therefore be exempt from the require-
ment to obtain a work permit on the basis of rules guaranteeing to
Community nationals and members of their families who are non-
member country nationals the right
to freedom of movement as
workers?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Juzgado de lo
Social No 33 by order of that court of 7 January 2005 in
the case of Sonia Chacón Navas against Eurest Colectivi-
dades SA

(Case C-13/05)

(2005/C 69/16)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of Juzgado de lo Social (Social
Court) No 33 (Spain) of 7 January 2005, received at the Court
Registry on 19 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Sonia Chacón Navas against Eurest Colectividades SA
on the following questions:

1. Does Directive 2000/78 (1),

in so far as Article 1 thereof
lays down a general framework for combating discrimina-
tion on the grounds of disability, include within its protec-
tive scope an employee who has been dismissed by her
employer solely because she is sick?

2. In the alternative,

if it should be concluded that sickness
does not fall within the protective framework which Direc-
tive 2000/78 lays down against discrimination on grounds
of disability and the first question is answered in the nega-
tive, can sickness be regarded as an identifying attribute in
addition to the ones in relation to which Directive 2000/78
prohibits discrimination?

(1) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a
general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupa-
tion.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords,
by order of that court dated 2 December 2004, in the case
of The Queen on the application of 1) Veli Tum and 2)
Mehmet Dari against Secretary of State for the Home
Department

(Case C-16/05)

(2005/C 69/17)

(Language of procedure: English)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the House of Lords, dated 2
December 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on
19 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the case of The
Queen on the application of 1) Veli Tum and 2) Mehmet Dari
against Secretary of State for the Home Department on the
following question:

Is Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol to the Association
Agreement signed at Brussels on 23 November 1970 to be
interpreted as prohibiting a Member State from introducing
new restrictions, as from the date on which that Protocol
entered into force in that Member State, on the conditions of
and procedure for entry to its territory for a Turkish national
seeking to establish himself in business in that Member State?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
(England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court
dated 11 January 2005, in the case of B.F. Cadman against
Health & Safety Executive, Intervener: Equal Opportu-
nities Commission

(Case C-17/05)

(2005/C 69/18)

(Language of procedure: English)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Court of Appeal (England &
Wales)
(Civil Division), dated 11 January 2005, which was
received at the Court Registry on 19 January 2005, for a preli-
minary ruling in the case of B.F. Cadman and Health & Safety
Executive, Intervener: Equal Opportunities Commission on the
following questions: