Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Hans-Dieter Jundt and Hedwig Jundt v Finanzamt Offenburg (C-281/06)
Judgment
The questions referred for a prelimina…
The first question
Reply of the Court
32

Hans-Dieter Jundt and Hedwig Jundt v Finanzamt Offenburg (C-281/06)

Judgment of 18 Dec 2007law://eu/cjeu/2006/c-281-06/para_32@2026-11-10

32As the Advocate General noted in point 12 of his Opinion, the decisive factor which brings an activity within the ambit of the Treaty provisions on the freedom to provide services is its economic character, that is to say, the activity must not be provided for nothing.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Third Chamber
Case: C-281/06 · ECLI:EU:C:2007:816
Decided: 18 Dec 2007
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)
Applicants: Hans-Dieter Jundt; Hedwig Jundt
Defendant: Finanzamt Offenburg
Rapporteur: A. Rosas
Advocate General: M. Poiares Maduro
Bench: 5 judges
A. Rosas, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J. Klučka, P. Lindh, A. Arabadjiev
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62006CJ0281

Topics

Freedom of establishment

History · 1 version

18 Dec 2007Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)2 provisions
Cited by 7: Openbaar Ministerie v Freddy Lucien Magdalena Kirschstein and Thierry Frans Adeline Kirschstein (C-393/17); Krzysztof Filipiak v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu (C-314/08); European Commission v Hungary (C-179/14)2 provisions; European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (C-160/08); Slagelse Almennyttige Boligselskab Afdeling Schackenborgvænge and Others v MV and Others (C-417/23)2 provisions; Peter Radgen and Lilian Radgen v Finanzamt Ettlingen (C-478/15)6 provisions; Pfotenhilfe-Ungarn e.V. v Ministerium für Energiewende, Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein (C-301/14)2 provisions
Cites 20: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)6 provisions; Raymond Kohll v Union des caisses de maladie (C-158/96); Stephan Max Wirth v Landeshauptstadt Hannover (C-109/92); Rolf Dieter Danner (C-136/00); Jean Reyners v Belgian State (2/74); Belgian State v René Humbel and Marie-Thérèse Edel (263/86); Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (C-147/03); Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (C-381/93); Herbert Schwarz and Marga Gootjes-Schwarz v Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach (C-76/05); Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (C-334/02); Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (C-318/05); Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (C-478/98); Erika Waltraud Ilse Hollmann v Fazenda Pública (C-443/06); B.S.M. Geraets-Smits v Stichting Ziekenfonds VGZ and H.T.M. Peerbooms v Stichting CZ Groep Zorgverzekeringen (C-157/99); Försäkringsaktiebolaget Skandia (publ) and Ola Ramstedt v Riksskatteverket (C-422/01); Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land v Keller Holding GmbH (C-471/04); Laboratoires Fournier SA v Direction des vérifications nationales et internationales (C-39/04); Freskot AE v Elliniko Dimosio (C-355/00); Rhiannon Morgan v Bezirksregierung Köln and Iris Bucher v Landrat des Kreises Düren (C-11/06, C-12/06); Mobistar SA v Commune de Fléron and Belgacom Mobile SA v Commune de Schaerbeek (C-544/03, C-545/03)