Case C-281/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Hans-Dieter Jundt, Hedwig Jundt v Finanzamt Offenburg (Freedom to provide services — Secondary teaching activity — Concept of remuneration — Allowances for professional expenses — Legislation concerning tax exemption — Conditions — Remuneration paid by a national university)
Date: 2007-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: allowances and expenses, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, tax exemption, teaching, universal service, voluntary work

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/17

— is not disproportionate in relation to that objective, which means
that the manner in which it is applied must be subject to a trans-
parent procedure based on objective non-discriminatory criteria
known in advance.

It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions are
satisfied.

(1) OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 December
2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio
di Stato — Italy) — 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. and Philip
Morris International Management SA; and Philip Morris
Products SA, Philip Morris Holland BV, Philip Morris
GmbH, Philip Morris Products Inc. and Philip Morris
International Management SA v Autorità Garante della
Concorrenza e del Mercato, Ente tabacchi italiani — ETI
SpA; and Philip Morris Products SA, Philip Morris Holland
BV, Philip Morris GmbH, Philip Morris Products Inc. and
Philip Morris International Management SA v Autorità
Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Amministrazione
autonoma dei monopoli di Stato, Ente tabacchi italiani —
ETI SpA

Respondents: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato,
Ente tabacchi italiani — ETI SpA

Appellants: Philip Morris Products SA, Philip Morris Holland BV,
Philip Morris GmbH, Philip Morris Products Inc. and Philip
Morris International Management SA

Respondents: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato,
autonoma dei monopoli di Stato, Ente
Amministrazione
tabacchi italiani — ETI SpA

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of
Article 81 EC — Agreement concerning the sale price of cigar-
ettes in beach of national anti-trust legislation — Attribution to
the legal person which is the economic successor of an under-
liability in respect of breaches committed by that
taking of
undertaking before its activities were taken over by that
successor

Operative part of the judgment

Article 81 EC et seq. must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case
of entities answering to the same public authority, where conduct
amounting to one and the same infringement of the competition rules
was adopted by one entity and subsequently continued until it ceased
by another entity which succeeded the first, which has not ceased to
exist, that second entity may be penalised for that infringement in its
entirety if it is established that those two entities were subject to the
control of the said authority.

(Case C-280/06) (1)

(1) OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.

(Competition — Imposition of
fines where undertakings
succeed each other — Principle of personal responsibility —
Entities belonging to the same group of undertakings or
answering to the same public authority — National law refer-
ring to Community competition law as source of interpretation
— Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction
of the Court of Justice)

(2008/C 51/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appelant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Respondents: Ente tabacchi
italiani — ETI SpA, Philip Morris
Products SA, Philip Morris Holland BV, Philip Morris GmbH,
Philip Morris Products Inc., Philip Morris International Manage-
ment SA

Appellants: Philip Morris Products SA, Philip Morris Holland BV,
Philip Morris GmbH, Philip Morris Products Inc. and Philip
Morris International Management SA

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 Decem-
ber 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Hans-Dieter Jundt, Hedwig
Jundt v Finanzamt Offenburg

(Case C-281/06) (1)

(Freedom to provide services — Secondary teaching activity —
Concept of ‘remuneration’ — Allowances for professional
expenses — Legislation concerning tax exemption — Condi-
tions — Remuneration paid by a national university)

(2008/C 51/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Hans-Dieter Jundt, Hedwig Jundt

Defendant: Finanzamt Offenburg

C 51/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.2.2008

Re:

Parties to the main proceedings

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Inter-
pretation of Articles 49 EC and 149 EC — Teaching activity
carried on as a secondary professional activity for a public-law
for remuneration which may be
legal person (a university)
regarded as an expense allowance — National
legislation
restricting the tax exemption laid down for such remuneration
to that paid by public-law legal persons established in the
Member State

Operative part of the judgment

1. A teaching activity carried out by a taxpayer of one Member State
for a legal person established under public law, in the present case a
university, situated in another Member State comes within the
scope of Article 49 EC, even if it is carried out on a secondary
basis and in a quasi-honorary capacity.

2. The restriction on the freedom to provide services constituted by the
fact that national legislation confines the application of an exemp-
tion from income tax to remuneration paid by universities, that is
to say, public-law legal persons, established on national territory, in
return for teaching activities carried out on a secondary basis, and
refuses to apply that exemption where that remuneration is paid by
a university established in another Member State, is not justified by
overriding reasons relating to the public interest.

3. The fact that the Member States are themselves competent to orga-
nise their respective education systems is not such as to render
compatible with Community law national legislation which confines
the benefit of a tax exemption to taxpayers carrying out activities
for or on behalf of national public universities.

Applicant: Société Pipeline Méditerranée et Rhône (SPMR)

Defendant: Administration des douanes et droits indirects, Direc-
tion nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières
(DNRED)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France)
— Interpretation of Article 14(1) of Council Directive
92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements
for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, move-
ment and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) —
Exemption from duty provided for in respect of losses occurring
under suspension arrangements which are attributable to fortui-
tous events or Force majeure and in respect of losses inherent in
the nature of the products during production and processing,
storage and transport — Applicability of that exemption to the
loss of petroleum products resulting from leaks from and then
the bursting of a pipeline operated by the approved warehouse-
keeper

Operative part of the judgment

(1) OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.

1.

the

first

‘Force majeure’ within the meaning of
sentence of
Article 14(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992
on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and
on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as
amended by Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994,
refers to abnormal and unforeseeable circumstances extraneous to
the authorised warehousekeeper, the consequences of which, despite
the exercise by him of all due care, could not have been avoided.
The requirement that the circumstances must be extraneous to the
authorised warehousekeeper is not limited to those circumstances
which are outside his control in a material or physical sense, but
refers also to circumstances which are objectively outside
the
authorised warehousekeeper's control or situated outside his sphere
of responsibility.

2. Losses of part of petroleum products which escaped from a pipeline,
caused by the fact that those products were in a liquid state and the
type of soil they spilled on prevented their recovery, cannot be
regarded as ‘inherent in the nature of
the products’ within the
meaning of
the second sentence of Article 14(1) of Directive
92/12, as amended by Directive 94/74.

(1) OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December
2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
cassation (France)) — Société Pipeline Méditerranée et
Rhône (SPMR) v Administration des douanes et droits
indirects, Direction nationale du renseignement et des
enquêtes douanières (DNRED)

(Case C-314/06) (1)

(Directive 92/12/EEC — Excise duties — Mineral Oils —
Losses — Exemption from tax — Force majeure)

(2008/C 51/29)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation