Case C-352/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln lodged on 25 August 2006 — Brigitte Bosmann v Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Familienkasse Aachen
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: family benefit, interpretation of the law, one-parent family, residence, worker (EU)

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/21

In the event that the answer to Question 7 is negative:

8. May a Turkish national, whose legal status derives from the
second indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision
No 1/80, rely on the special protection against expulsion
under Article 28(1) of Directive 2004/38?

In the event that the continuance of a legal status under the
second indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision No
1/80 is to be assumed (if the answer to Question 1 is affirma-
tive or the answer to Question 2 is affirmative and the answers
to Questions 3 and 4 are negative), a further question requires
an answer:

9. Can a number of minor offences (essentially offences against
property), which, taken individually, are not sufficient to
form the basis of an actual and sufficiently serious danger to
a fundamental interest of society, justify expulsion because
of their great number, if further offences are likely and no
measures are taken against German nationals in the same
circumstances?

(1) OJ 1977 L 361, p. 60.

authorised at a later date, or can national legal provisions
and/or national practice stipulate that an entitlement
to
annual paid leave is extinguished if workers become incapa-
citated for work during the leave year before leave is
authorised and do not recover their capacity for work
before the end of the leave year or the carry-over period
laid down by statute, collective agreement or individual
agreement?

2. Is Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EC to be understood as
meaning that at the end of the employment relationship
workers have, in any event, a claim to financial compensa-
tion in respect of leave accrued but not taken (an allowance
in lieu of leave), or can national legislation and/or national
practice stipulate that workers will not receive an allowance
in lieu of leave if, up to the end of the leave year or the rele-
vant carry-over period, they are incapacitated for work and/
or if after the ending of the employment relationship they
draw a disability or invalidity pension?

3. In the event that the Court of Justice answers Questions 1

and 2 in the affirmative:

Is Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC to be understood as
meaning that the entitlement to annual leave or an allow-
ance in lieu requires the worker actually to have worked
during the leave year, or does the entitlement arise also in
the case of excusable absence (by reason of illness) or inex-
cusable absence in the same leave year?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeits-
gericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 21 August 2006
— Gerhard Schultz-Hoff v Deutsche Rentenversicherung
Bund

(1) OJ L 299, p. 9.

(Case C-350/06)

(2006/C 281/33)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Gerhard Schultz-Hoff

Respondent: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund

Questions referred

1. Is Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) (= Article 7 of
Directive 93/104/EC) to be understood as meaning that
workers must in any event receive minimum annual paid
leave of four weeks [and that] in particular leave not taken
by a worker because of illness during the leave year must be

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Köln lodged on 25 August 2006 — Brigitte Bosmann v
Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Familienkasse Aachen

(Case C-352/06)

(2006/C 281/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Brigitte Bosmann

Defendant: Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Familienkasse Aachen

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,