Case C-185/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  16 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Länsrätten i Stockholms län) — Ulf Öberg v Försäkringskassan, länskontoret Stockholm, formerly Stockholms läns allmänna försäkringskassa (Freedom of movement for workers — Officials and servants of the European Communities — Parental benefits — Taking into account of the period of affiliation to the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities)
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: family benefit, health insurance, interpretation of the law, parental leave

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/11

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by continuing to regard the supplier of a defective
product as liable on the same basis as the producer where the
producer
cannot be identified, even though the supplier has
informed the injured person within a reasonable time of the iden-
tity of the person who supplied him with the product, the French
Republic has failed to take the necessary measures to comply fully
with the judgment in Case C-52/00 Commission v France as
regards the transposition of Article 3(3) of Council Directive
85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States
concerning liability for defective products, and has thereby failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 228 EC;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay to the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities, into the ‘European Community own resources’
account, a penalty payment of EUR 31 650 for each day of delay
in taking the necessary measures to comply fully with the judgment
the
in Case C-52/00 Commission v France from delivery of
present judgment until full compliance with the judgment in that
case;

3. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 118, 30.04.2004.

Defendant: Försäkringskassan, länskontoret Stockholm, formerly
Stockholms läns allmänna försäkringskassa

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Länsrätten i Stockholms
län — Interpretation of Articles 12, 17(2), 18 and 39 EC,
Article 7(1) and 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the
Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for
workers within the Community (English Special Edition:
1968(II), p. 475) and Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June
1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded
by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4) — Enti-
tlement to parental benefit (foräldrapenning) — Account not
taken of a period during which the worker was covered by the
Joint Sickness insurance scheme pursuant to the Staff Regula-
tions of Officials of the European Communities.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 39 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that, where national
legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings applies, the
period during which a worker was affiliated to the Joint Sickness
Insurance Scheme of the European Communities must be taken into
account.

(1) OJ C 179, 10.07.2004.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Läns-
rätten i Stockholms län) — Ulf Öberg v Försäkringskassan,
läns
länskontoret

Stockholms

Stockholm,

formerly

allmänna försäkringskassa

(Case C-185/04) (1)

(Freedom of movement for workers — Officials and servants
of the European Communities — Parental benefits — Taking
into account of the period of affiliation to the Joint Sickness
Insurance Scheme of the European Communities)

(2006/C 131/19)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Länsrätten i Stockholms län

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 February
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Beroep te Antwerpen) — Belgische Staat v Molenbergnatie
NV

(Case C-201/04) (1)

(Community Customs Code — Post-clearance recovery of
import or export duties — Duty to notify the debtor of the
amount of duty owed as soon as it has been entered in the
accounts and before the expiry of a period of three years
from the date when the debt was incurred — Definition of
‘appropriate procedures’)

(2006/C 131/20)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties to the main proceedings

Referring court

Applicant: Ulf Öberg

Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen