Case C-123/04: 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 UBS AG
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAEC Treaty, application of EU law, interpretation of the law, originating product, uranium

C 106/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Appeal brought on 5 March 2004 by Minoan Lines SA
against the judgment delivered on 11 December 2003 by
the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-66/99 between Minoan
Lines SA and the Commission.

— The Court of First Instance wrongly dismissed the claim for
annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the appel-
lant.

(1) OJ No L 109, 27.4.1999, p. 24.

(Case C-121/04 P)

(2004/C 106/56)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 December
2003 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-66/99 between Minoan Lines
SA and the Commission was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 5 March 2004 by
Minoan Lines SA, represented by Ioannis and Emmanouil Dril-
lerakis and Nikolaos Korogiannakis, of the Athens Bar.

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 UBS AG

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11
December 2003 in Case T-66/99 Minoan Lines SA v
Commission of the European Communities;

(Case C-123/04)

(2004/C 106/57)

— annul Commission Decision

of
9
to
December 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81) (IV/34.466 -
Greek Ferries);

1999/271/EC (1)

— in the alternative, reduce the fine of EUR 3 260 000 which

the Commission imposed on the appellant;

— order the Commission to pay the appellant's costs in
respect of the proceedings both before the Court of First
Instance and before the Court of Justice.

Grounds of appeal

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 UBS AG 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

— Infringement by the Court of First Instance of Article 14 of
Regulation No 17, of Article 18 of Regulation No 4056/86
and of general principles of law.

(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

— The Court of First Instance wrongly held that ETA's acts

(b) the storage thereof with another undertaking having its

were correctly attributed to Minoan Lines.

seat in the territory of the Euratom Community?

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/33

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?

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

Treaty also encompass the enrichment of uranium?

(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?

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

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

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) 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?

(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
the Federal Republic of
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch of
Germany?

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?

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?

(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?

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?