Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Procedure - Oral procedure - Report for the Hearing drawn up by the Judge-Rapporteur - Purpose

2 EAEC - Common system of supplies - Balancing of supply and demand - Simplified procedure - Submission of a supply contract containing no indication of the geographical origin of the materials - Right of the Agency to ask the parties to complete the documentation - The Agency required to take a decision concerning conclusion of the contract within the time-limit prescribed - Point at which time starts to run

(EAEC Treaty, Arts 2(d) and 60; Rules of the Euratom Supply Agency determining the manner in which demand is to be balanced against the supply of ores, source materials and special fissile materials, Art. 5 bis (f))

3 Appeals - Pleas in law - Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments raised before the Court of First Instance - Inadmissible

4 EAEC - Common system of supplies - Balancing of supply and demand - Exclusive right to conclude supply contracts - Obligation on the Agency to meet all orders - Supply of source materials from outside the Community - Covered - Limits - Compliance with the objective of ensuring that all Community users receive a regular and equitable supply - Simplified procedure - Agency's decision-making powers - Scope of judicial review

(EAEC Treaty, Arts 2(d), 52 and 61; Rules of the Euratom Supply Agency determining the manner in which demand is to be balanced against the supply of ores, source materials and special fissile materials, Art. 5 bis)

Summary

1 The purpose of the Judge-Rapporteur's report is precisely to present in summary form the elements of fact and law in the case and the pleas and arguments of the parties, and it is open to the parties before or during the hearing to ask for corrections to be made or to express reservations.

2 In the application of Article 5 bis of the Rules of the Euratom Supply Agency determining the manner in which demand is to be balanced against the supply of ores, source materials and special fissile materials - which provides, under a `simplified procedure', that all supply contracts are for the purposes of their conclusion, to be submitted to the Agency for signature within 10 working days and that the Agency therefore has 10 working days within which to act, either by concluding or refusing to conclude the contract - the geographical origin of the materials to be supplied is one of the principal elements of a supply contract which have to be communicated to the Agency, since such knowledge is essential in order to ensure reliability of supply.

Under Article 2(d) of the Euratom Treaty, the Community is to ensure that all users in the Community receive a regular and equitable supply of ores and nuclear fuels. Clearly regularity of supply is closely linked with diversity of sources of supply. Article 60 of that Treaty, under which users of raw materials are periodically to inform the Agency of the place of origin of supplies, confirms the importance of knowledge of the geographical origin of supplies for implementation of the common supply policy by the Agency.

Consequently, the Agency is entitled to request the parties to provide the missing documentation by communicating to it the origin of the materials to be supplied. While Article 5 bis (f) of the Rules does require the Agency to take a decision within 10 days, it does not prohibit it - if the contract submitted is incomplete, in particular if it omits to communicate the information available to the parties on the origin of the materials to be supplied - from having recourse to such an investigative measure, where the request for information is made within the 10-day period.

Given that the Agency's obligation to decide quickly on the conclusion of a contract exists only if the contract contains all the information needed for it to fulfil its task of supervising sources of supply, the period referred to in Article 5 bis (f) of the Rules does not start to run until receipt of the complete documentation. Any other interpretation would mean that, in the absence of sufficient information, the Agency would refuse at the outset to conclude the contract, an approach which could in certain circumstances prove excessive, in particular if the information awaited did not justify that outcome.

3 An appeal which merely reiterates the pleas in law and arguments put forward at first instance in fact constitutes a request for re-examination of the application brought before the Court of First Instance, a matter which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, and such pleas and arguments are therefore inadmissible.

4 Under the first paragraph of Article 61 of the EAEC Treaty, the Euratom Supply Agency is obliged to meet all orders unless there are legal or material obstacles, the presence of which must necessarily be assessed from the point of view of the aims of the common supply policy as set out in Articles 2(d) and 52 of the Treaty. While Article 61 does indeed form part of Section 2 of Chapter 6 on supplies, headed `Ores, source materials and special fissile materials coming from inside the Community', and there is no reference in the Treaty to that provision as regards the supply of source materials coming from non-member countries, action by the Agency concerning the latter is nevertheless subject to requirements similar to those laid down in Article 61, since the Agency is obliged to meet the orders of users while ensuring that certain bounds are not exceeded.

Those bounds, to exceed which would constitute a legal obstacle within the meaning of Article 61 of the Treaty, undeniably include compliance with the aim pursued by the Treaty of a regular and equitable supply for Community users, and that obliges the Agency as holder of the exclusive right to conclude supply contracts to ensure, subject to review by the Commission, that certain orders do not affect the diversification of supply or infringe the principle of non-discrimination, whatever the origin of those supplies, whether from inside or outside the Community. In view of that task, the Agency plays an essential role in the common supply policy.

Moreover, the simplified procedure introduced by Article 5 bis of the Rules of the Euratom Supply Agency determining the manner in which demand is to be balanced against the supply of ores, source materials and special fissile materials does not deprive the Agency of its exclusive rights, and even within that framework the Agency has the right to object to a contract which might prejudice the achievement of the objectives of the Treaty. In particular, it would not be consistent with the aims of the Treaty to limit the Agency's power to take decisions in situations where it is unaware of the origin of the supplies or where it has legitimate reasons to suppose that the origin of the products is liable to affect the reliability of supplies for the Member States of the Community. Where decisions concerning economic and commercial policy and nuclear policy are involved, warranting an assessment of complex economic circumstances, the Agency has a broad discretion and judicial review must be confined to identifying any manifest error of assessment or misuse of powers.