# C_2013260EN.01003602.xml

| 7.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/36

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 11 July 2013 — Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí v K. B.

(Case C-394/13)

2013/C 260/66

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí

Applicant:

Other party to the proceedings: Mgr. K. B.

Other party to the proceedings:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 76 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community be interpreted to mean that the Czech Republic is a state competent to provide a family benefit — the parental allowance — in circumstances such as those of the present case, i.e. where the applicant and her husband and child live in France, the husband works there, it is the place in which their interests are centred, and the applicant has drawn fully on the PAJE (prestation d’accueil du jeune enfant) family benefit in France?
  If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 76 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community be interpreted to mean that the Czech Republic is a state competent to provide a family benefit — the parental allowance — in circumstances such as those of the present case, i.e. where the applicant and her husband and child live in France, the husband works there, it is the place in which their interests are centred, and the applicant has drawn fully on the PAJE (prestation d’accueil du jeune enfant) family benefit in France?

1

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

| 2. | Should the transitional provisions of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of social security systems be interpreted to mean that they require the Czech Republic to provide the family benefit after 30 April 2010 even though the competence of a state may be affected, as of 1 May 2010, by the new definition of residence under Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (Article 22 et seq.)?
  If the answer to the first question is in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should the transitional provisions of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of social security systems be interpreted to mean that they require the Czech Republic to provide the family benefit after 30 April 2010 even though the competence of a state may be affected, as of 1 May 2010, by the new definition of residence under Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (Article 22 et seq.)?

2

3

If the answer to the first question is in the negative:

| 3. | Should Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of social security systems (in particular Article 87) be interpreted to mean that, in circumstances such as those of the present case, the Czech Republic is the state competent to provide a family benefit as of 1 May 2010? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Should Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of social security systems (in particular Article 87) be interpreted to mean that, in circumstances such as those of the present case, the Czech Republic is the state competent to provide a family benefit as of 1 May 2010?

---

(1)  OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2.

1

(2)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1.

3

---