Case C-353/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Flensburg (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2006 — in the Registry Office case Stefan Grunkin and Dorothee Regina Paul, other parties to the proceedings: Leonhard Matthias Grunkin-Paul and Standesamt Niebüll
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: censorship, discrimination on the basis of nationality, free movement of persons, interpretation of the law

C 281/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2006

Question(s) referred

Parties to the main proceedings

to self-employed persons

1. Is Article 13(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No
1408/71 (1) on the application of social security schemes to
employed persons,
and to
members of their families moving within the Community to
be interpreted restrictively, so as not to prevent entitlement
to child benefit of a mother bringing up children on her
own in the State or
(Federal Republic of
residence
Germany), who does not receive child benefit in the State of
employment (Kingdom of the Netherlands) because of the
age of the children?

2. If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

to be interpreted restrictively, so as not

Is Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21
implementing Regulation (EEC) No
March 1972 for
1408/71 (2)
to
prevent entitlement to child benefit of a mother bringing up
children on her own in the State of residence (Federal
Republic of Germany), who does not receive child benefit in
the Netherlands)
the State of employment
because of the age of the children?

(Kingdom of

Applicants: Stefan Grunkin and Dorothee Regina Paul

Other parties to the proceedings: Leonhard Matthias Grunkin-Paul
and Standesamt Niebüll

Question referred

In light of the prohibition on discrimination set out in Article
12 of the EC Treaty and having regard to the right to the
freedom of movement for every citizen of the Union laid down
by Article 18 of the EC Treaty, is the provision on the conflict
of laws contained in Article 10 of the EGBGB valid, in so far as
it provides that the right to bear a name is governed by nation-
ality alone?

3. If the answer to Question 1 and Question 2 is in the nega-

tive:

Does a mother in employment, who brings up children on
her own, have a right to the application of the more favour-
able rules of her State of residence in relation to the
granting of child benefit arising directly from the EC Treaty
and/or from general legal principles?

4. Is it relevant to the answers to the above questions whether
the employee returns to the family residence at the end of
each working day?

(1) OJ L 149, p. 2.
(2) OJ L 74, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged
on 30 August 2006 — Frigerio Luigi & C. S.n.c. v Comune
di Triuggio

(Case C-357/06)

(2006/C 281/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

The Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht
Flensburg (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2006 — in the
Registry Office case Stefan Grunkin and Dorothee Regina
Paul, other parties to the proceedings: Leonhard Matthias
Grunkin-Paul and Standesamt Niebüll

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Frigerio Luigi & C. S.n.c.

Defendant: Comune di Triuggio

(Case C-353/06)

(2006/C 281/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Flensburg

Questions referred

1. Does Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1), or the analo-
gous Article 26(2) of Directive 92/50/EEC (2) (in the event
that the latter is regarded as the legislative point of refer-
ence), according to which candidates and tenderers who, on
the basis of the legislation of the Member State in which
they are established, are authorised to provide the service at
issue may not be rejected solely because, under the provi-
sions in force in the Member State in which the contract is
to be awarded, they would be required to be natural persons
lay down a fundamental principle of
or legal persons,