Case C-124/04: Referencefor a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg, by order of thatcourt of 4 February 2004 in the case of IndustriasNucleares do Brasil S.A. and Siemens AG against Texas Utilities Electric Corporation
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAEC Treaty, application of EU law, interpretation of the law, originating product, uranium

C 106/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesger-
icht Oldenburg, by order of that court of 4 February 2004
in the case of Industrias Nucleares do Brasil S.A. and
Siemens AG against Texas Utilities Electric Corporation

(d) Is the application of Article 75(c) of the EAEC Treaty
precluded where the undertaking carrying out
the
process acquires title to the raw material on delivery
and therefore has to transfer title to the enriched
uranium back to the other contracting party on
completion of the process?

(Case C-124/04)

(2004/C 106/58)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht Olden-
burg of 4 February 2004, received at the Court Registry on 8
March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Industrias
Nucleares do Brasil S.A. and Siemens AG against Texas Utilities
Electric Corporation on the following questions:

1. Do the terms ‘processing, conversion or shaping’

in the
first paragraph of Article 75 of the EAEC Treaty also
encompass the enrichment of uranium?

2. Does an undertaking having its seat outside the territory of
the EAEC Treaty pursue all or any of its activities in the
territory of the Euratom Community within the meaning
of Article 196 (b) of the EAEC Treaty if it maintains with
an undertaking having its seat
the
Euratom Community a commercial relationship for

in the territory of

4.

(a) Is the application of Article 75 of the EAEC Treaty
precluded if the persons or undertakings concerned do
not
their duty to notify the Euratom Supply
Agency under the second paragraph of Article 75 of
the EAEC Treaty?

fulfil

(b) Can breach of the duty to notify the Euratom Supply
Agency under the second paragraph of Article 75 of
the EAEC Treaty be remedied by the persons or under-
takings concerned subsequently fulfilling their duty to
notify or by the Agency subsequently becoming cogni-
sant in some other way?

5.

(a) Is an agreement or contract within the meaning of
Article 73 of the EAEC Treaty invalid if the contracting
parties do not obtain the prior consent of the Euro-
pean Commission required thereunder?

(a) the supply of raw material

for the production of
enriched uranium by, and the procurement of enriched
uranium from, the undertaking having its seat in the
territory of the Euratom Community

(b) If so, can the invalidity of the transaction be remedied
by the persons or undertakings concerned subsequently
obtaining such consent or by the institutions of the
Euratom Community failing to take action after
becoming cognisant in some other way?

(b) the storage thereof with another undertaking having its

seat in the territory of the Euratom Community?

3.

supplied for processing,

(a) Does Article 75(c) of the EAEC Treaty require the
material
conversion or
shaping and the material subsequently returned to be
identical in substance, apart from the physical changes
associated with those processes?

6.

(a) Is the disposal of materials within the meaning of
Article 57 (1) of the EAEC Treaty prohibited if the
producer does not fulfil his obligation to make an offer
to the Euratom Supply Agency under
the second
sentence of Article 57 (2) of the EAEC Treaty?

(b) Or is it sufficient for the processed material to be
commensurate in terms of quantity and quality with
the material supplied?

(c) Is the application of Article 75(c) of the EAEC Treaty
returned cannot be

precluded where the material
attributed to any material supplied by the consignee?

(b) Can breach of

the duty to offer materials to the
Euratom Supply Agency under the second sentence of
Article 57 (2) of the EAEC Treaty be remedied by the
producer subsequently fulfilling his duty to make an
offer or by the Agency subsequently becoming cogni-
sant in some other way and not exercising its right of
option?

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/35

7. Does the concept of production in Article 86 of the EAEC

Treaty also encompass the enrichment of uranium?

8. Are uranium and light-enriched uranium ‘source materials’
within the meaning of the last phrase of Article 197 (1) of
the EAEC Treaty?

9.

(a) Can civil-law title under Paragraph 903 of the Bürger-
liches Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code, hereinafter the
‘BGB’) be acquired and transferred in respect of mate-
rials that have become the property of the Euratom
Community under the first sentence of Article 86 of
the EAEC Treaty?

(b) Does the unlimited right of use and consumption
afforded to holders of rights under Article 87 of the
EAEC Treaty exist as a property or quasi-property
interest sui generis alongside rights in rem under the
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch of
the Federal Republic of
Germany?

10. Does an undertaking pursue any of its activities in the
territories of the Member States of the Euratom Com-
munity within the meaning of Article 196 (b) of the EAEC
Treaty if it acquires or disposes of enriched uranium stored
there?

11. Does Article 73 of the EAEC Treaty also apply mutatis
mutandis to agreements concerning enriched uranium
stored within the territory of the Euratom Community
where all of the parties are nationals of third States?

1. Are

Council

1269/1999 (1)

Regulations Nos

and
822/2001 (2), which fix Community tariff quotas only in
respect of the importation of barley for the manufacture of
beer aged in tanks containing beechwood, valid in the light
of the prohibition on discrimination between producers laid
down in the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) of the
Treaty?

2. If the abovementioned regulations are invalid, does Article
10(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 (3) of 30
June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in
cereals,
in conjunction with Commission Regulation (EC)
No 2023/2001 (4) of 15 October 2001 fixing the import
duties in the cereals sector, nevertheless require that import
duty be charged on high-graded barley falling within CN
code 1003 00 which is intended for the production of beer
made from malt?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1269/1999 of 14 June 1999 opening a
Community tariff quota for barley falling within CN code 100300
(OJ L 151 of 18 June 1999, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 822/2001 of 24 April 2001 opening a
Community tariff quota for barley for malting falling within CN
code 100300 (OJ L 120 of 28 April 2001, p. 1).

(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the
common organisation of the market in cereals (OJ L 181 of 1 July
1992, p. 21).

(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2023/2001 of 15 October 2001
fixing the import duties in the cereals sector (OJ L 273 of 16
October 2001, p. 18).

a

for

preliminary

Reference
the
College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands),
by order of that court of 18 February 2004, in the case of
Heineken Brouwerijen B.V. v Hoofdproductschap Akker-
bouw,

ruling

by

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division by
order of that court dated 18 November 2003, amended on
27 February 2004, in the case of Master Declan O'Byrne
against Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd and Aventis Pasteur SA.

(Case C-126/04)

(2004/C 106/59)

(Case C-127/04)

(2004/C 106/60)

order

Communities

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
the
by
pean
College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative
Court for Trade and Industry) (Netherlands), received at the
Court Registry on 8 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Heineken Brouwerijen B.V. against Hoofdpro-
ductschap Akkerbouw (Central Board for Agricultural Products)
on the following questions:

of

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by an order of the High Court of Justice
(England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division, dated 18
November 2003, amended on 27 February 2004, which was
received at the Court Registry on 8 March 2004, for a preli-
minary ruling in the case of Master Declan O'Byrne against
Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd and Aventis Pasteur SA on the
following questions: