Case C-281/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 28 June 2006 — Hans-Dieter and Hedwig Jundt v Finanzamt Offenburg
Date: 2006-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: allowances and expenses, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, public service, tax exemption, teaching, voluntary work

C 224/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2006

‘anti-trust’

to assess at

2. Does it fall to the national authority responsible for the
rules, when determining the
application of
person to be penalised,
its own discretion
whether circumstances exist which warrant the attribution
to the economic successor of responsibility for contraven-
tions of
the competition rules committed by the legal
person which it has succeeded, even when that latter has
not ceased to exist at the date of the decision, so that the
effectiveness of the competition rules is not compromised
by alterations made to the legal form of the undertakings?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfi-
nanzhof (Germany) lodged on 28 June 2006 — Hans-
Dieter and Hedwig Jundt v Finanzamt Offenburg

in the light of

lawful
continue to have responsibility in that regard?

the fact

that

the Member States

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 3
July 2006 — Telecom Italia SpA v Ministero dell'Economia
e delle Finanze, Ministero delle Comunicazioni

(Case C-296/06)

(2006/C 224/42)

Language of the case: Italian

(Case C-281/06)

(2006/C 224/41)

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio

Language of the case: German

Parties to the main proceedings

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hans-Dieter and Hedwig Jundt

Applicant: Telecom Italia SpA

Defendants: Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Ministero
delle Comunicazioni

Question referred

Is Article 20(3) of Law No 448/1998 in conjunction with
Article 4(9) of Law No 249/1997 compatible with Articles 11,
22 and 25 of Directive 97/13/EC? (1)

Defendant: Finanzamt Offenburg

(1) OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15.

Questions referred

1. Is Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now Article 49 EC) to be
interpreted as including within its scope also spare-time
teaching activity for or on behalf of a public law legal
person (a university) where only an expense allowance is
paid for that activity, as being an activity in a quasi-
honorary capacity?

2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative,

is the
restriction on freedom to provide services whereby allow-
ances are taxed favourably only if they are paid by national
public law legal persons (here, Paragraph 3(26) of
the
Einkommensteuergesetz (Income Tax Law)) justified by the
fact that the State tax concession applies only where the
activity is for the benefit of a national public law legal
person?

3. If the second question is answered in the negative, is Article
126 of the EC Treaty (now Article 149 EC) to be interpreted
as meaning that a provision of tax law designed to help
supplement the organisation of the education system (such
as Paragraph 3(26) of the Einkommensteuergesetz, here) is

Appeal brought on 13 July 2006 by Eurohypo AG against
the judgment delivered on 3 May 2006 in Case T-439/04
Eurohypo AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-304/06 P)

(2006/C 224/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Eurohypo AG (represented by C. Rohnke and M.
Kloth, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)