# C_2006281EN.01001801.xml

| 18.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/18

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 7 August 2006 — Bayerischer Rundfunk, Deutschland Radio, Hessischer Rundfunk, Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, Norddeutscher Rundfunk, Radio Bremen, Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg, Saarländischer Rundfunk, Südwestrundfunk, Westdeutscher Rundfunk, Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen v GEWA, Gesellschaft für Gebäudereinigung und Wartung mbH

(Case C-337/06)

(2006/C 281/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Bayerischer Rundfunk, Bayerischer Rundfunk, Deutschland Radio, Hessischer Rundfunk, Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, Norddeutscher Rundfunk, Radio Bremen, Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg, Saarländischer Rundfunk, Südwestrundfunk, Westdeutscher Rundfunk, Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen

Appellants:

Respondent: GEWA, Gesellschaft für Gebäudereinigung und Wartung mbH

Respondent:

Intervening party: Heinz W. Warnecke, trading as Großbauten Spezial Reinigung

Intervening party:

Questions referred

| 1. | Where it appears in the first alternative of letter (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1), is the term ‘financed ... by the State’ to be interpreted as including indirect financing given to bodies by means of fees imposed, on persons who have receiving equipment available for use, by the State pursuant to the obligation imposed on it by constitutional law to ensure the independent financing and existence of those bodies? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Where it appears in the first alternative of letter (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1), is the term ‘financed ... by the State’ to be interpreted as including indirect financing given to bodies by means of fees imposed, on persons who have receiving equipment available for use, by the State pursuant to the obligation imposed on it by constitutional law to ensure the independent financing and existence of those bodies?

1

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, where it appears in the first alternative of letter (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC, is the term ‘financed ... by the State’ to be interpreted as being satisfied only in circumstances in which the State has direct influence on the award of contracts by the body financed by the State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, where it appears in the first alternative of letter (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC, is the term ‘financed ... by the State’ to be interpreted as being satisfied only in circumstances in which the State has direct influence on the award of contracts by the body financed by the State?

| 3. | If the second question is answered in the negative, is letter (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC to be interpreted, in the light of Article 16(b), as meaning that the only services removed from the Directive's scope of application are those specified in Article 16(b) and that other services which are not related to programme material but are of a subsidiary or ancillary nature are within the Directive's scope of application (by argumentum a contrario)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the second question is answered in the negative, is letter (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC to be interpreted, in the light of Article 16(b), as meaning that the only services removed from the Directive's scope of application are those specified in Article 16(b) and that other services which are not related to programme material but are of a subsidiary or ancillary nature are within the Directive's scope of application (by argumentum a contrario)?

argumentum a contrario

---

(1)  OJ L 134, p. 114.

1

---