Case C-280/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 27 June 2006 — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Ente Tabacchi Italiani — ETI SpA, Philip Morris Products SA, Philip Morris Holland BV, Philip Morris GmbH, Philip Morris Products Inc. Philip Morris International Management SA
Date: 2006-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, company law, competition law, interpretation of the law, liability, restriction on competition

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/21

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du
travail de Verviers (Belgium) lodged on 26 June 2006 —
Mamate El Youssfi v Office National des Pensions

No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978 (OJ 1978 L 264, p.
1) (4), as supplemented by the EC-Morocco Agreement of
26 February 1996 (OJ L 70 of 18 March 2000)?

(Case C-276/06)

(2006/C 224/39)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Verviers

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mamate El Youssfi

Defendant: Office National des Pensions

Question referred

Is a refusal to grant statutory Guaranteed Income to Elderly
Persons on the ground that:

— (a) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of the
European Communities of 14 June 1971 does not apply to
the applicant (1);

— (b) the applicant is not a recognised stateless person or a

refugee;

— (c) the applicant is not a national of a country with which
Belgium has concluded a reciprocal convention on guaran-
teed income or in relation to which it has recognised that
de facto reciprocity exists; or that

— (d) the applicant is not entitled to any retirement or survi-

vor's pension under a Belgian scheme,

the result of:

— (1) too restrictive an interpretation of Regulation (EC) No
883/2004 of 29 April 2004 (2) (replacing Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971), in particular in the light of
Article 14 of the ECHR, Article 1 of the First Protocol
thereto and Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 of 14 May
2003 (3);

or, if that is not the case,

— (2) an interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 that
is incompatible with the Cooperation Agreement between
the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of
Morocco, signed at Rabat on 27 April 1976 and approved
on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC)

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on
the application of social security schemes to employed persons and
their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).
(2) Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security
systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 of 14 May 2003 extending
the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Regulation
third countries who are not
(EEC) No 574/72 to nationals of
already covered by those provisions solely on the ground of their
nationality (OJ 2003 L 124, p. 1).

(4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978
concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between
the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco
(OJ 1978 L 264, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di
Stato (Italy) lodged on 27 June 2006 — Autorità Garante
della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Ente Tabacchi Italiani
— ETI SpA, Philip Morris Products SA, Philip Morris
Holland BV, Philip Morris GmbH, Philip Morris Products
Inc. Philip Morris International Management SA

(Case C-280/06)

(2006/C 224/40)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Defendants: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v
Ente Tabacchi Italiani — ETI SpA, Philip Morris Products SA,
Philip Morris Holland BV, Philip Morris GmbH, Philip Morris
Products Inc. Philip Morris International Management SA

Questions referred

1. What, in accordance with Article 87 et seq. of the Treaty
and with the general principles of Community law, is the
criterion to be adopted in determining the undertaking on
which a penalty is to be imposed for contravention of the
rules in the sphere of competition when, in connection with
conduct penalised as a whole, the last part of those actions
was carried out by an undertaking having succeeded the
original undertaking in the economic sphere concerned
whenever the original body, while still
in existence, no
longer operates as a commercial undertaking, or at least not
in the economic sector affected by the penalty?

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)