Joined Cases C-123/04 and C-124/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg — Germany) — Industrias Nucleares do Brasil SA, Siemens AG v UBS AG (C-123/04), Texas Utilities Electric Corporation (C-124/04) (EAEC Treaty — Supplies — Property ownership — Enrichment of uranium on the territory of the Community by a national of a third State)
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAEC Treaty, application of EU law, interpretation of the law, originating product, uranium

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 September
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribu-
nale di Genova — Italy) — Cristiano Marrosu, Gianluca
Sardino v Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedale San Martino di
Genova e Cliniche Universitarie Convenzionate

(Case C-53/04) (1)

(Directive 1999/70/EC — Clauses 1(b) and 5 of the frame-
work agreement on fixed-term work — Establishment of
employment relationships of indefinite duration resulting
from infringement of the rules governing successive fixed-
term contracts — Possible derogation in respect of employ-
ment contracts in the public sector)

Operative part of the judgment

The framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18
March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of
28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term
work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as
not in principle precluding national legislation which, where there is
abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment
contracts or relationships by a public-sector employer, precludes their
being converted into contracts of indeterminate duration, even though
such conversion is provided for in respect of employment contracts and
relationships with a private-sector employer, where that legislation
includes another effective measure to prevent and, where relevant,
punish the abuse of successive fixed-term contracts by a public-sector
employer.

(2006/C 281/01)

Language of the case: Italian

(1) OJ C 85, 3.4.2004.

Referring court

Tribunale di Genova

Parties to the main proceedings

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September
2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Ober-
landesgericht Oldenburg — Germany) — Industrias Nucle-
ares do Brasil SA, Siemens AG v UBS AG (C-123/04),
Texas Utilities Electric Corporation (C-124/04)

Applicants: Cristiano Marrosu, Gianluca Sardino

(Joined Cases C-123/04 and C-124/04) (1)

Defendant: Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedale San Martino di
Genova e Cliniche Universitarie Convenzionate

(EAEC Treaty — Supplies — Property ownership — Enrich-
ment of uranium on the territory of the Community by a
national of a third State)

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Genova — Interpretation of
Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the
framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC,
UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Establishment of
an employment relationship of indefinite duration in the case
where the rules governing successive fixed-term contracts have
been infringed — Possibility of derogation in the case of
employment contracts signed with public authorities

(2006/C 281/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg

C 281/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2006

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Industrias Nucleares do Brasil SA, Siemens AG

Defendants: UBS AG (C-123/04), Texas Utilities Electric
Corporation (C-124/04),

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Olden-
burg — Interpretation of Arts. 57, 73, 75, 86, 87, 196 and
197 EA — Contract of loan guaranteed by a security over
uranium belonging to an undertaking from a third State,
enriched and stored in the Community

Operative part

1. The first paragraph of Article 75 EA is to be interpreted as
meaning that the terms ‘processing’, ‘conversion’ and ‘shaping’ in
that provision also encompass uranium enrichment.

2. Article 196(b) EA is to be interpreted as meaning that an under-
taking having its seat outside the territories of the Member States
does not pursue, within the meaning of that provision, all or any
of its activities in those territories if it maintains with an under-
taking having its seat in those territories a commercial relationship
either for the supply of raw material for the production of enriched
uranium and the procurement of enriched uranium or for the
storage of that enriched uranium.

3. Article 75(c) EA is to be interpreted as meaning that the material
supplied for treatment, conversion or shaping need not be identical
to the material subsequently returned and that it is sufficient for
the processed material to be commensurate in terms of quality and
quantity with the material supplied, although it may be impos-
sible, in some cases, to attribute the material returned to the mate-
rial supplied. In addition, the provision is to be interpreted as
meaning that the application of Article 75(c) EA is not 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 comple-
tion of the process.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September
2006 — Kingdom of Spain v United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-145/04) (1)

to vote —
(European Parliament — Elections — Right
Commonwealth citizens residing in Gibraltar and not having
citizenship of the Union)

(2006/C 281/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad and
F. Díez Moreno, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (represented by: R. Caudwell, P. Goldsmith, D. Wyatt
and D. Anderson QC, Agents, and M. Chamberlain, Barrister)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities (represented by: C. Ladenburger, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringe-
ment of Articles 189 EC, 190 EC, 17 EC and 19 EC and of the
1976 Act concerning the Election of the Representatives of the
European Parliament by Direct Universal Suffrage, annexed to
Council Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of 20 September
1976 — Right of Commonwealth citizens resident in Gibraltar
to vote in European elections

Operative part of the judgment

4. Article 196(b) EA is to be interpreted as meaning that an under-
taking does not pursue all or any of its activities in the territories
of the Member States within the meaning of that provision if it
acquires or disposes of enriched uranium stored there.

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

5. Article 73 EA is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not
apply to agreements concerning enriched uranium stored within
the territory of the European Atomic Energy Community where all
the parties to the agreement are nationals of third States.

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its

own costs.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2004

(1) OJ C 106, 30.04.2004.